K
kenwood
Guest
Directv is dropping "i" network ch 255 effective February 28. They claim the network is mostly informercials and does Customers a disservice carriying the channel.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
L
Les
Guest
> Directv is dropping "i" network ch 255 effective February
> 28. They claim the network is mostly informercials and does
> Customers a disservice carriying the channel.
I'll accept their comment as sincere the very same day they s-can the
multiple home shopping channels.
<P ID="signature">______________
Artificial intelligence is NO match for natural stupidity!</P>
> 28. They claim the network is mostly informercials and does
> Customers a disservice carriying the channel.
I'll accept their comment as sincere the very same day they s-can the
multiple home shopping channels.
<P ID="signature">______________
Artificial intelligence is NO match for natural stupidity!</P>
> > Directv is dropping "i" network ch 255 effective February
> > 28. They claim the network is mostly informercials and
> does
> > Customers a disservice carriying the channel.
>
> I'll accept their comment as sincere the very same day they
> s-can the
> multiple home shopping channels.
>
Currently, Dish Network still carries the "i" network. I think that within the next few months, expect a major change similiar to the UPN/WB situation to the channel. If they are going to become a cable/satellite-only station, then Pax will have to sell their stations and either convert it to Independent or another network.
> > 28. They claim the network is mostly informercials and
> does
> > Customers a disservice carriying the channel.
>
> I'll accept their comment as sincere the very same day they
> s-can the
> multiple home shopping channels.
>
Currently, Dish Network still carries the "i" network. I think that within the next few months, expect a major change similiar to the UPN/WB situation to the channel. If they are going to become a cable/satellite-only station, then Pax will have to sell their stations and either convert it to Independent or another network.
> > > Directv is dropping "i" network ch 255 effective
> February
> > > 28. They claim the network is mostly informercials and
> > does
> > > Customers a disservice carriying the channel.
> >
> > I'll accept their comment as sincere the very same day
> they
> > s-can the
> > multiple home shopping channels.
> >
>
> Currently, Dish Network still carries the "i" network. I
> think that within the next few months, expect a major change
> similiar to the UPN/WB situation to the channel. If they are
> going to become a cable/satellite-only station, then Pax
> will have to sell their stations and either convert it to
> Independent or another network.
>
If Directv drops the "i", then where oh where will ladies get their Billy RAy Cyrus fix? I mean, Mullets and high top tennis shoes...Now that's quality television!
> February
> > > 28. They claim the network is mostly informercials and
> > does
> > > Customers a disservice carriying the channel.
> >
> > I'll accept their comment as sincere the very same day
> they
> > s-can the
> > multiple home shopping channels.
> >
>
> Currently, Dish Network still carries the "i" network. I
> think that within the next few months, expect a major change
> similiar to the UPN/WB situation to the channel. If they are
> going to become a cable/satellite-only station, then Pax
> will have to sell their stations and either convert it to
> Independent or another network.
>
If Directv drops the "i", then where oh where will ladies get their Billy RAy Cyrus fix? I mean, Mullets and high top tennis shoes...Now that's quality television!
R
RobertMoore
Guest
> If Directv drops the "i", then where oh where will ladies
> get their Billy RAy Cyrus fix? I mean, Mullets and high top
> tennis shoes...Now that's quality television!
Try the Disney Channel: He's starring as the father to real-life daughter Miley's title character in the new series "Hannah Montana", which will debut in March.
> get their Billy RAy Cyrus fix? I mean, Mullets and high top
> tennis shoes...Now that's quality television!
Try the Disney Channel: He's starring as the father to real-life daughter Miley's title character in the new series "Hannah Montana", which will debut in March.
K
KMRichards
Guest
MODERATOR NOTE!
This was already discussed to death over the past few days:
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=653445&Board=tv-usa>http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=653445&Board=tv-usa</a>
I reiterate ... PLEASE read all threads going back several days (even if that means going a couple of pages deep) before deciding that something hasn't already been discussed here.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
This was already discussed to death over the past few days:
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=653445&Board=tv-usa>http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=653445&Board=tv-usa</a>
I reiterate ... PLEASE read all threads going back several days (even if that means going a couple of pages deep) before deciding that something hasn't already been discussed here.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
C
ccmfan
Guest
Re: MODERATOR NOTE!
> This was already discussed to death over the past few days:
>
h> ttp://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=653445&Board=tv-usa
>
>
> I reiterate ... PLEASE read all threads going back several
> days (even if that means going a couple of pages deep)
> before deciding that something hasn't already been discussed
> here.
>
Maybe if the board was set up to where when a thread has new posts it would return to the top of the list, this wouldn't happen as much. It's definitely easier to bring up a topic again than to try to post on a thread several pages back where nobody will see it.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by ccmfan on 02/15/06 02:44 AM.</FONT></P>
> This was already discussed to death over the past few days:
>
h> ttp://www.radio-info.com/mods/board?Post=653445&Board=tv-usa
>
>
> I reiterate ... PLEASE read all threads going back several
> days (even if that means going a couple of pages deep)
> before deciding that something hasn't already been discussed
> here.
>
Maybe if the board was set up to where when a thread has new posts it would return to the top of the list, this wouldn't happen as much. It's definitely easier to bring up a topic again than to try to post on a thread several pages back where nobody will see it.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by ccmfan on 02/15/06 02:44 AM.</FONT></P>
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: MODERATOR NOTE!
> Maybe if the board was set up to where when a thread has new
> posts it would return to the top of the list, this wouldn't
> happen as much. It's definitely easier to bring up a topic
> again than to try to post on a thread several pages back
> where nobody will see it.
This was already suggested on the "Ask Radio-Info" board (where, unlike here, that suggestion is on-topic) and the answer was that if the board was set up that way people could "bump" an old topic that they wanted to keep visible just by posting a new message.
I have seen boards set up that way where precisely that kind of abuse occurs. The VH1 Classic message board has one particularly bothersome individual on it who routinely bumps threads to the top EVERY SINGLE MONTH, over and over again.
So, not gonna happen. And that suggestion didn't belong here.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Maybe if the board was set up to where when a thread has new
> posts it would return to the top of the list, this wouldn't
> happen as much. It's definitely easier to bring up a topic
> again than to try to post on a thread several pages back
> where nobody will see it.
This was already suggested on the "Ask Radio-Info" board (where, unlike here, that suggestion is on-topic) and the answer was that if the board was set up that way people could "bump" an old topic that they wanted to keep visible just by posting a new message.
I have seen boards set up that way where precisely that kind of abuse occurs. The VH1 Classic message board has one particularly bothersome individual on it who routinely bumps threads to the top EVERY SINGLE MONTH, over and over again.
So, not gonna happen. And that suggestion didn't belong here.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
O
odomski
Guest
Re: MODERATOR NOTE!
And that suggestion didn't belong
> here.
Instead of complaining about it, why not just move the "suggestion" thread to where it belongs? I doubt that is very hard to do since you're a moderator.
And that suggestion didn't belong
> here.
Instead of complaining about it, why not just move the "suggestion" thread to where it belongs? I doubt that is very hard to do since you're a moderator.
Re: MODERATOR NOTE!
> Maybe if the board was set up to where when a thread has new
> posts it would return to the top of the list, this wouldn't
> happen as much. It's definitely easier to bring up a topic
> again than to try to post on a thread several pages back
> where nobody will see it.
>
Agreed. Its pointless replying to topics halfway down the page, because once they get there nobody reads them anymore, and yeah I know this isn't the ask forum(but chances are that topic isn't far enough back for me to start a new suggestion thread about it, and too far back that anyone would read my reply anyway), but a simple no bumping rule, or locking topics once they get past page 2 atmost is all that is needed. 90% of all messageboards have topics brought back to the top with new replies, and for the mpst part the only boards that have problems such as bumping of old topics are the ones with little to no moderation, such as the VH1classics board.
As for this i channel, the channel is mostly a waste, they did promise directv they would air content, so I say get rid of them. Just aslong as they replace it with something else worth it. BBC world would be nice, but I know doubtful.
> Maybe if the board was set up to where when a thread has new
> posts it would return to the top of the list, this wouldn't
> happen as much. It's definitely easier to bring up a topic
> again than to try to post on a thread several pages back
> where nobody will see it.
>
Agreed. Its pointless replying to topics halfway down the page, because once they get there nobody reads them anymore, and yeah I know this isn't the ask forum(but chances are that topic isn't far enough back for me to start a new suggestion thread about it, and too far back that anyone would read my reply anyway), but a simple no bumping rule, or locking topics once they get past page 2 atmost is all that is needed. 90% of all messageboards have topics brought back to the top with new replies, and for the mpst part the only boards that have problems such as bumping of old topics are the ones with little to no moderation, such as the VH1classics board.
As for this i channel, the channel is mostly a waste, they did promise directv they would air content, so I say get rid of them. Just aslong as they replace it with something else worth it. BBC world would be nice, but I know doubtful.
Re: MODERATOR NOTE!
> I doubt that is very hard to do since you're a moderator.
How NOT to win friends and influence people.
> I doubt that is very hard to do since you're a moderator.
How NOT to win friends and influence people.
X
XL
Guest
Re: MODERATOR NOTE!
> Instead of complaining about it, why not just move the
> "suggestion" thread to where it belongs? I doubt that is
> very hard to do since you're a moderator.
Umm...I didn't see any complaining by the person you're responding to. Here's an idea: know what the hell you're talking about PRIOR to posting.
Freaking whiners.
> Instead of complaining about it, why not just move the
> "suggestion" thread to where it belongs? I doubt that is
> very hard to do since you're a moderator.
Umm...I didn't see any complaining by the person you're responding to. Here's an idea: know what the hell you're talking about PRIOR to posting.
Freaking whiners.
M
Mark_Ericson
Guest
Re: MODERATOR NOTE!
> This was already suggested on the "Ask Radio-Info" board
> (where, unlike here, that suggestion is on-topic) and the
> answer was that if the board was set up that way people
> could "bump" an old topic that they wanted to keep visible
> just by posting a new message.
>
> I have seen boards set up that way where precisely that kind
> of abuse occurs. The VH1 Classic message board has one
> particularly bothersome individual on it who routinely bumps
> threads to the top EVERY SINGLE MONTH, over and over again.
>
> So, not gonna happen. And that suggestion didn't belong
> here.
I understand this continues this off-topic thread, but...
I used to be a moderator at two different video game message boards, and we never had such problems. Once in a while, some bored person would dig up an old thread and it would be closed.
Now I don't know if the maturity level is lower here than at a video game forum filled with teenagers, but I imagine that if it's such an issue, threads could auto close after either 30 days or when they're off page 2 (whichever comes later, as in the less popular forums).
I don't know how much trouble it would be to code that into the forum, or if it's already there, but it's a thought. Because I would also like to see threads with new replies get pushed to the top where they'll be seen. It would definitely stop things like these reposts from happening as often as they do.
Just a thought...
- Trip<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P>
> This was already suggested on the "Ask Radio-Info" board
> (where, unlike here, that suggestion is on-topic) and the
> answer was that if the board was set up that way people
> could "bump" an old topic that they wanted to keep visible
> just by posting a new message.
>
> I have seen boards set up that way where precisely that kind
> of abuse occurs. The VH1 Classic message board has one
> particularly bothersome individual on it who routinely bumps
> threads to the top EVERY SINGLE MONTH, over and over again.
>
> So, not gonna happen. And that suggestion didn't belong
> here.
I understand this continues this off-topic thread, but...
I used to be a moderator at two different video game message boards, and we never had such problems. Once in a while, some bored person would dig up an old thread and it would be closed.
Now I don't know if the maturity level is lower here than at a video game forum filled with teenagers, but I imagine that if it's such an issue, threads could auto close after either 30 days or when they're off page 2 (whichever comes later, as in the less popular forums).
I don't know how much trouble it would be to code that into the forum, or if it's already there, but it's a thought. Because I would also like to see threads with new replies get pushed to the top where they'll be seen. It would definitely stop things like these reposts from happening as often as they do.
Just a thought...
- Trip<P ID="signature">______________
Visit my website, www.rabbitears.info! It's eventually going to be your one resource for television info! Digital television, histories, and technical information for the entire USA from one source!</P>
O
orangemonster2k1
Guest
Re: MODERATOR NOTE!
> Umm...I didn't see any complaining by the person you're
> responding to. Here's an idea: know what the hell you're
> talking about PRIOR to posting.
>
> Freaking whiners.
>
Probably get banned for this, but I don't see what the big deal of moving something to a different page is.
Also, talk with the people who run wvradio.net/wcmifm.com and tvnewstalk.net, their sites are run so that new posts are pushed to the top. I bet it is quite simple.
And while we are at it, their moderators don't shut down every other thread because it is "off topic" or some bull crap...or call people "freaking whiners" for that matter.
Trip was talking about the maturity level of this board compared to his video game board with teenagers....at the moment, our moderators (and the two I am speaking of know who they are) fall below the teenagers.
Tybois Uphold
Editor-SVRTV
> Umm...I didn't see any complaining by the person you're
> responding to. Here's an idea: know what the hell you're
> talking about PRIOR to posting.
>
> Freaking whiners.
>
Probably get banned for this, but I don't see what the big deal of moving something to a different page is.
Also, talk with the people who run wvradio.net/wcmifm.com and tvnewstalk.net, their sites are run so that new posts are pushed to the top. I bet it is quite simple.
And while we are at it, their moderators don't shut down every other thread because it is "off topic" or some bull crap...or call people "freaking whiners" for that matter.
Trip was talking about the maturity level of this board compared to his video game board with teenagers....at the moment, our moderators (and the two I am speaking of know who they are) fall below the teenagers.
Tybois Uphold
Editor-SVRTV
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: MODERATOR NOTE!
> Instead of complaining about it, why not just move the
> "suggestion" thread to where it belongs? I doubt that is
> very hard to do since you're a moderator.
Not when the suggestion was embedded in a thread on a different topic. Threads can be moved in their entirety, but not individual posts.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Instead of complaining about it, why not just move the
> "suggestion" thread to where it belongs? I doubt that is
> very hard to do since you're a moderator.
Not when the suggestion was embedded in a thread on a different topic. Threads can be moved in their entirety, but not individual posts.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: MODERATOR NOTE!
> Trip was talking about the maturity level of this board
> compared to his video game board with teenagers....at the
> moment, our moderators (and the two I am speaking of know
> who they are) fall below the teenagers.
*shrug*
No one asks you to continue participating if you don't like the way boards are moderated.
We <u>do</u>, however, insist that you follow Rule #5.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Trip was talking about the maturity level of this board
> compared to his video game board with teenagers....at the
> moment, our moderators (and the two I am speaking of know
> who they are) fall below the teenagers.
*shrug*
No one asks you to continue participating if you don't like the way boards are moderated.
We <u>do</u>, however, insist that you follow Rule #5.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
O
orangemonster2k1
Guest
Re: MODERATOR NOTE!
> No one asks you to continue participating if you don't like
> the way boards are moderated.
True, but it should never be an issue. Seriously, we are here to talk about radio and TV stuff....not fight over petty crap.
> We do, however, insist that you follow Rule #5.
You may take what I said as a compliant, that's fine, it was actually an observation of this and other sites. I call it "free speech"...a rareity.
> No one asks you to continue participating if you don't like
> the way boards are moderated.
True, but it should never be an issue. Seriously, we are here to talk about radio and TV stuff....not fight over petty crap.
> We do, however, insist that you follow Rule #5.
You may take what I said as a compliant, that's fine, it was actually an observation of this and other sites. I call it "free speech"...a rareity.
X
XL
Guest
Free Speech With Your WHINE?
>
> True, but it should never be an issue. Seriously, we are
> here to talk about radio and TV stuff....not fight over
> petty crap.
It will always be an issue because some people just won't agree and some of those will starting PMS-ing over it
> You may take what I said as a compliant, that's fine, it was
> actually an observation of this and other sites. I call it
> "free speech"...a rareity.
Here we go again...someone mentioning "free speech." If you don't know what the hell it means, then stop referring to it. And in this case YOU don't! We don't have "free speech" everywhere we go and on every website you're allowed to participate in.
WHY?
Because private entities have every right to set rules as they see fit. In radio, you certainly can NOT say anything you damn well please. At least not without repurcussions. Same with TV. On websites like this where people are allowed to participate, you are not allowed to say whatever you want. It's called "rules" or "terms of service" on some sites.
And when you sign up, you are essentially "agreeing" to those terms of service/rules. PERIOD!
Educate yourself for a half-minute before spouting off because NOW you're sounding like a whiner playing the "Free speech" card. And you couldn't even deal that hand right.
Does Professor XL need to school you somemo'?
>
> True, but it should never be an issue. Seriously, we are
> here to talk about radio and TV stuff....not fight over
> petty crap.
It will always be an issue because some people just won't agree and some of those will starting PMS-ing over it
> You may take what I said as a compliant, that's fine, it was
> actually an observation of this and other sites. I call it
> "free speech"...a rareity.
Here we go again...someone mentioning "free speech." If you don't know what the hell it means, then stop referring to it. And in this case YOU don't! We don't have "free speech" everywhere we go and on every website you're allowed to participate in.
WHY?
Because private entities have every right to set rules as they see fit. In radio, you certainly can NOT say anything you damn well please. At least not without repurcussions. Same with TV. On websites like this where people are allowed to participate, you are not allowed to say whatever you want. It's called "rules" or "terms of service" on some sites.
And when you sign up, you are essentially "agreeing" to those terms of service/rules. PERIOD!
Educate yourself for a half-minute before spouting off because NOW you're sounding like a whiner playing the "Free speech" card. And you couldn't even deal that hand right.
Does Professor XL need to school you somemo'?
O
orangemonster2k1
Guest
Re: Free Speech With Your WHINE?
Dude, I know what free speech means. I did take Government 12 and Law 1 in School....they teach the constitution and bill of rights there.
I have never seen a rule on any site about not being able to complain about the moderators. Is that to protect you from being yelled at for acting the way you are now?
Who knows and who cares....sad that two of the "head honchos" of the site act this way, the rest of the people who post here (Bob from VARTV, Trip, and others) are actually quite nice and actually answer even my stupidest of questions, which I do appericate...and have never insulted anyone.
If you want to keep people showing up, ya might want to take after them just a little.
Tybois Uphold
Editor-SVRTV
Dude, I know what free speech means. I did take Government 12 and Law 1 in School....they teach the constitution and bill of rights there.
I have never seen a rule on any site about not being able to complain about the moderators. Is that to protect you from being yelled at for acting the way you are now?
Who knows and who cares....sad that two of the "head honchos" of the site act this way, the rest of the people who post here (Bob from VARTV, Trip, and others) are actually quite nice and actually answer even my stupidest of questions, which I do appericate...and have never insulted anyone.
If you want to keep people showing up, ya might want to take after them just a little.
Tybois Uphold
Editor-SVRTV
K
KMRichards
Guest
Re: Free Speech With Your WHINE?
> I have never seen a rule on any site about not being able to
> complain about the moderators.
Well, you have now. The owners have had it in the "Rules" section of this site from day one.
> Who knows and who cares....
I suppose the owners will. Say good night.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> I have never seen a rule on any site about not being able to
> complain about the moderators.
Well, you have now. The owners have had it in the "Rules" section of this site from day one.
> Who knows and who cares....
I suppose the owners will. Say good night.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.