Chris 313
Come get some
Premium
join:2004-07-18
Houma, LA
clubs:
 ·Comcast
·Comcast
·Charter Pipeline
 ·Comcast Digital Vo..
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to tdouglas22
Re: For Me....
said by tdouglas22  :I can only speak for myself in this situation but even though my finances are less than what they were before the economy went down, I'm still able to pay for my cable services with no problem. I agree with that. I've done the same. It's all about budgeting, eh? |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by Chris 313 :said by tdouglas22 :I can only speak for myself in this situation but even though my finances are less than what they were before the economy went down, I'm still able to pay for my cable services with no problem. I agree with that. I've done the same. It's all about budgeting, eh? Exactly, that's why it's not about people not being able to pay but about not wanting to pay for such overpriced, worthless PoC service.
Let's face it: the average dumb American can survive without TV, even if (s)he first will feel lost (OMG, reading books! Watching DVDs, video streams! Spending more time with family!)) - I can only hope more and more people will dicth their shitty-quality cable, cut $150/mo cost and spend it on their family or just save it...
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| No one is forced, in any way, shape or form, to pay for cable service (beyond the strictly regulated, and therefore eminently affordable, local basic service). People don't want to pay for cable service because they would rather have more money to spend on other things -- it is as simple as that.
Practically no one who doesn't "want" to pay for cable service because they actually, honestly, consider it "overpriced" or "worthless", actually does pay for cable service, as you assert. Rather, they pay for cable service because they actually, honestly, consider it worth it despite their (and perhaps, your) excited protestations to the contrary. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to kamm
I have to give you props, though, for recognizing how often your comments are without merit, and for paying tribute to me in your signature. I'm flattered. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
2 edits | reply to bicker
Re: For Me....
said by bicker :No one is forced, in any way, shape or form, to pay for cable service (beyond the strictly regulated, and therefore eminently affordable, local basic service). People don't want to pay for cable service because they would rather have more money to spend on other things -- it is as simple as that.
Except that you seem to ignore the huge drop in cable TV quality with a constant price gouging every year.These two immediately render your argument false, sorry. Practically no one who doesn't "want" to pay for cable service because they actually, honestly, consider it "overpriced" or "worthless", actually does pay for cable service, as you assert.
Ehh? And you know it exactly how...? Pal, you're pulling sh!t out of thin air, let's face it. Rather, they pay for cable service because they actually, honestly, consider it worth it despite their (and perhaps, your) excited protestations to the contrary.
BS - they are doing it becuase of habits. Ask anyone and nobody will tell you it's a well-priced, decent service - instead they will all whine about being more and more expensive etc but they won't do shit because they are addicted to this crap. --
said by bicker :Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them. |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| As I said, no one is forced, in any way, shape or form, to pay for cable service. No one. You seem to be ignoring that. You also seem to be saying that everyone else is an idiot and you're the only intelligent person, when the reality is that other people don't share your beliefs and values. Indeed, there are so many more of those "other" people that what you think is practically without merit. You're frustrated about that, that's clear. However, that is your problem, not theirs. They're getting what they want. You're not. They win. You lose. And getting frustrated about it doesn't actually improve your situation.
You choose to say that there has been a decrease in quality, ignoring excellent shows like Breaking Bad, Mad Men, In Plain Sight, etc. You refuse to acknowledge the reality that cable networks actually offer more, and better, service than they ever have before.
And your puerile vulgarity doesn't support your perspective either; it just makes it clearer that all we're reading is the rantings of a juvenile, or someone choosing to present themselves as such because they have no desire to engage in a mature discussion. |
|
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| reply to kamm
I bumped into the guy I bought my house from 'not too long ago'. When I first met him to talk about the place I mentioned there was no cable or roof antenna, and this is rural area with maybe four OTA channels of low quality.
He said he wouldn't let his kids (three) watch TV. They had a dialup connection and could use that from time to time.
FF to 'not too long ago'. All three of his kids received scholarships to college - one of them a cream of the crop school. All THREE. I found it illuminating to say the least.
Of course, you can't blame it all on TV; a great deal of credit goes to the parents (and the kids), but I distinctly remember him saying the kids read books from the library rather than watch TV. You can't deny the connection.
-- |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
| reply to Anon
Socialism isn't the answer
You're not calling for anything. You're ranting. You claim the prices are over-priced, but then we point out how many millions of people are paying those prices, so you make up some other fiction to try to rationalize why they do so... accusing "them" of being "addicted". It reminds me a little of John Lovitz. "Yeah, that's the ticket."
You're anti-capitalism. Okay. That does put a lot of your ranting in context. However, this is a capitalist country. Just about half of our country supports a distinctly pro-business perspective. They don't buy into your socialistic, alarmist attempts to foster class warfare in our society, by demonizing the affluent.
However, this is not a political forum, so your self-centered distortions are not appropriate here. |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Titus Pullo
Re: For Me....
TV isn't so bad as much as limiting the viewing of it. Growing up, I never really liked sitting there, glued to stupid programming (sitcoms are mindless).
But I do enjoy the educational channels (NatGeo HD, SciHD, HistoryChannel HD...). I can't justify +$30/mth for limited programming (and viewing) when I enjoy Netflix better.
And with Spring/Summertime coming, I'll watch even less.
Now, if someone had a pay-as-you-watch model that was effectively cheap...Say $10/mth... I'm in!
--
Weeeeeeee! |
|
joetaxpayer
I'M Here Till Thursday
join:2001-09-07
Sudbury, MA
·Comcast
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Titus Pullo
said by Titus Pullo :Of course, you can't blame it all on TV; a great deal of credit goes to the parents (and the kids), but I distinctly remember him saying the kids read books from the library rather than watch TV. You can't deny the connection. -- The strongest correlation (with scholastic success) is for reading. Second is the amount of time spent actually talking to parents. Doing enough of those two doesn't leave time to veg out in front of the TV. I agree in full with your post.
On a side note;
I think if all parents managed to put a treadmill in front of the TV, and with a minimum speed allowed, told their kids they can watch all they want, that years from now there'd be a strange correlation between good health linked to high TV watching. |
|
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
West Chester, PA
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | said by joetaxpayer :said by Titus Pullo :Of course, you can't blame it all on TV; a great deal of credit goes to the parents (and the kids), but I distinctly remember him saying the kids read books from the library rather than watch TV. You can't deny the connection. -- The strongest correlation (with scholastic success) is for reading. Second is the amount of time spent actually talking to parents. Doing enough of those two doesn't leave time to veg out in front of the TV. I agree in full with your post. On a side note; I think if all parents managed to put a treadmill in front of the TV, and with a minimum speed allowed, told their kids they can watch all they want, that years from now there'd be a strange correlation between good health linked to high TV watching. Absolutely agree. We made/make it a point to read to our kids. They have more books than shelf-space to put them on, and my oldest kids have taken to grabbing books from me and my wife. We even set up a special bookshelf for them - basically they're books that belong to either me or my wife, but which are appropriate for them to read. They know that anything that's on that shelf is fair game, and they don't need to ask permission to read it (now if I can only teach my oldest to actually put the books BACK, we'd be on to something  ). Any other books of ours require permission from us for them to read.
BTW, as a correlary to what you wrote - kids follow your example. Want them to do well in school? Get them into reading (my kids all have voracious appetites for books). Want to instill that love for reading in them? Then YOU need to read. My kids see me and my wife reading stuff all the time - books, magazines, newspapers, even stuff on line. We love to read, and it passed on to them. We don't just read to them (the younger ones that is), but they see us reading for our own entertainment too.
One last point - regarding your conversation item (talking with your kids) - another thing that we stress on this front - eating together. There are definitely activities that, from time to time, get in the way of sitting down together, but whenever possible we make it a point to ALL sit down to dinner at the same time. Eating on the go is strongly discouraged, unless you have no choice. Want to have those conversations with your kids? You need to eat with them. Heck, we'll even have dinner at off-times to adjust for schedules - one night we'll eat at 5:00... the next at 7:00. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
1 edit | reply to Titus Pullo
said by Titus Pullo :FF to 'not too long ago'. All three of his kids received scholarships to college - one of them a cream of the crop school. All THREE. I found it illuminating to say the least. What's the difference. They may as well have sat in front of the tube 24x7. It's not like the economy will be out of the toilet by the time they graduate. They'll be lucky to find a job flipping burgers and/or scrubbing the toilets of bailed out bank and automotive shareholders because this country is on the fasttrack to a 3rd world shithole.
--
The Toll
Tracking Lord Stanley
|
|
jadebangle
Premium
join:2007-05-22
Olathe, KS
·SureWest Internet
·AT&T Yahoo
·Comcast
| reply to cableties
Re: For Me....
said by cableties :TV isn't so bad as much as limiting the viewing of it. Growing up, I never really liked sitting there, glued to stupid programming (sitcoms are mindless). But I do enjoy the educational channels (NatGeo HD, SciHD, HistoryChannel HD...). I can't justify +$30/mth for limited programming (and viewing) when I enjoy Netflix better. And with Spring/Summertime coming, I'll watch even less. Now, if someone had a pay-as-you-watch model that was effectively cheap...Say $10/mth... I'm in! TV are for the lazy coach potato
Internet are for those who have the brain capacity to think, reason,learn and willing to do complicated thing for enjoyment |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | reply to Anon
Re: Socialism isn't the answer
Your vulgar language precludes granting your comments any further respect. Clean up your language, kid. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to jadebangle
Re: For Me....
said by jadebangle :said by cableties :TV isn't so bad as much as limiting the viewing of it. Growing up, I never really liked sitting there, glued to stupid programming (sitcoms are mindless). But I do enjoy the educational channels (NatGeo HD, SciHD, HistoryChannel HD...). I can't justify +$30/mth for limited programming (and viewing) when I enjoy Netflix better. And with Spring/Summertime coming, I'll watch even less. Now, if someone had a pay-as-you-watch model that was effectively cheap...Say $10/mth... I'm in! TV are for the lazy coach potato Internet are for those who have the brain capacity to think, reason,learn and willing to do complicated thing for enjoyment And how do you categorize people that watch Tv and also use the internet?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to bicker
Re: Socialism isn't the answer
said by bicker :Your vulgar language precludes granting your comments any further respect. Clean up your language, kid. 2nd that. |
|
