S
spinner
Guest
Is it necessary to start a new thread every time the CW/MY Tv gets a new affiliate in the middle of nowhere? Can't we just put them all together?
-
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
M
Mark_Ericson
Guest
> Is it necessary to start a new thread every time the CW/MY
> Tv gets a new affiliate in the middle of nowhere? Can't we
> just put them all together?
If it was a sticky, maybe, but new posts in threads don't get bumped here, and people like myself actually are keeping up with what every affiliate of the new networks.
- 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>
> Tv gets a new affiliate in the middle of nowhere? Can't we
> just put them all together?
If it was a sticky, maybe, but new posts in threads don't get bumped here, and people like myself actually are keeping up with what every affiliate of the new networks.
- 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>
K
KMRichards
Guest
> Is it necessary to start a new thread every time the CW/MY
> Tv gets a new affiliate in the middle of nowhere? Can't we
> just put them all together?
Your moderator replies:
I cannot combine threads into a single one. And without that ability, I can't create a "sticky" that would be comprehensive.
In addition, such a thread would quickly consume a lot of space, and be increasing difficult to navigate.
I also believe the present method of creating a new thread for each new affiliation allows the discussions to be market-specific.
So, yes, I think it <u>is</u> necessary.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Tv gets a new affiliate in the middle of nowhere? Can't we
> just put them all together?
Your moderator replies:
I cannot combine threads into a single one. And without that ability, I can't create a "sticky" that would be comprehensive.
In addition, such a thread would quickly consume a lot of space, and be increasing difficult to navigate.
I also believe the present method of creating a new thread for each new affiliation allows the discussions to be market-specific.
So, yes, I think it <u>is</u> necessary.<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
S
spinner
Guest
people like myself actually are keeping
> up with what every affiliate of the new networks.
>
That's kinda sad. I mean I cared about my local market and the big ones, but low powered stations in Indiana? Really?
> up with what every affiliate of the new networks.
>
That's kinda sad. I mean I cared about my local market and the big ones, but low powered stations in Indiana? Really?
Re: Really???? Try radio boards
> > Is it necessary to start a new thread every time the CW/MY
>
> > Tv gets a new affiliate in the middle of nowhere? Can't we
>
> > just put them all together?
>
> Your moderator replies:
>
> I cannot combine threads into a single one. And without
> that ability, I can't create a "sticky" that would be
> comprehensive.
>
> In addition, such a thread would quickly consume a lot of
> space, and be increasing difficult to navigate.
>
> I also believe the present method of creating a new thread
> for each new affiliation allows the discussions to be
> market-specific.
>
> So, yes, I think it is necessary.
>
A lot of replies I noticed are under radio boards. So you can check there too. You will find discussion of the CW and MNT situation (for example check Wisconson)
<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
> > Is it necessary to start a new thread every time the CW/MY
>
> > Tv gets a new affiliate in the middle of nowhere? Can't we
>
> > just put them all together?
>
> Your moderator replies:
>
> I cannot combine threads into a single one. And without
> that ability, I can't create a "sticky" that would be
> comprehensive.
>
> In addition, such a thread would quickly consume a lot of
> space, and be increasing difficult to navigate.
>
> I also believe the present method of creating a new thread
> for each new affiliation allows the discussions to be
> market-specific.
>
> So, yes, I think it is necessary.
>
A lot of replies I noticed are under radio boards. So you can check there too. You will find discussion of the CW and MNT situation (for example check Wisconson)
<P ID="signature">______________
Once I figured out the meaning of life....Then I forgot to write it down.</P>
> people like myself actually are keeping
> > up with what every affiliate of the new networks.
> >
>
> That's kinda sad. I mean I cared about my local market and
> the big ones, but low powered stations in Indiana? Really?
>
Well, it's probably not sad to Trip himself, considering he runs a television-related website (one he links to in his signature). <P ID="signature">______________
Let us live so that 100 years from now, someone may be proud of us.</P>
> > up with what every affiliate of the new networks.
> >
>
> That's kinda sad. I mean I cared about my local market and
> the big ones, but low powered stations in Indiana? Really?
>
Well, it's probably not sad to Trip himself, considering he runs a television-related website (one he links to in his signature). <P ID="signature">______________
Let us live so that 100 years from now, someone may be proud of us.</P>
> Is it necessary to start a new thread every time the CW/MY
> Tv gets a new affiliate in the middle of nowhere? Can't we
> just put them all together?
Is it really necessary to put up a vague subject header, like, well, "Really????"?
-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
> Tv gets a new affiliate in the middle of nowhere? Can't we
> just put them all together?
Is it really necessary to put up a vague subject header, like, well, "Really????"?
-OA<P ID="signature">______________
Ohio Media Watch - <a target="_blank" href=http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com>http://ohiomedia.blogspot.com</a></P>
M
Mark_Ericson
Guest
> That's kinda sad. I mean I cared about my local market and
> the big ones, but low powered stations in Indiana? Really?
If you think that's sad, what will you say when you find out I can name all the stations in a given market from memory?
But yes, I do take an interest in all the affiliates of these new networks, and I would even if I DIDN'T run a site that is dedicated to (eventually) listing every full-service and many low-powered TV stations across the US.
- 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>
> the big ones, but low powered stations in Indiana? Really?
If you think that's sad, what will you say when you find out I can name all the stations in a given market from memory?
But yes, I do take an interest in all the affiliates of these new networks, and I would even if I DIDN'T run a site that is dedicated to (eventually) listing every full-service and many low-powered TV stations across the US.
- 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>
S
spinner
Guest
Well.......
It gets you to look at it, now doesn't it?
It gets you to look at it, now doesn't it?
- Status