Doug Anderson

Davoud <star@sky.net> writes:

>
> Alan Browne:
> > ...
> > On "regular" TV there are many jewels whether comedies like MASH or All
> > in the family in their day, to Twin Peaks to The Sopranos to various PBS
> > series such as The Civil War, The Elegant Universe (NOVA), BBC dramas, etc.
>
> One person's jewel is another person's lump of coal. Of those I have
> not seen All in the Family, Twin Peaks, or The Sopranos. I have seen a
> few episodes of M*A*S*H. I sometimes like NOVA even if it does have to
> be watered down for a scientifically illiterate population.
>
> > To believe it is all wasteland is to shut out some very good entertainment.
>
> I don't think it's all a wasteland, but I wouldn't go scouring Death
> Valley looking for pennies that tourists might dropped.

Yes, that would be a bad strategy.

Similarly, if one was limited to randomly selecting a book from all
published books, and reading it, one would quickly conclude that no
one is writing anything of interest, or at best that it wasn't worth
scouring the wasteland of publishing for the occasional worthwhile
piece of writing.

So for TV, like for any other media, one needs a more effective
technique than random sampling to select what is worth trying. And
then, like in any other media, what some people think is sublime art
or at least golden entertainment won't be universally enjoyed.

Alan Browne

On 2012-01-16 22:25 , Davoud wrote:
> Davoud:
>>> You missed one of my posts. My wife needs a TV because she's a football
>>> and baseball fan--Baltimore native, don't you know. I don't care much
>>> for TV and there hasn't yet been a TV that I would pay $40 for if it
>>> were up to me.
>
> Alan Browne:
>> ...
>> On "regular" TV there are many jewels whether comedies like MASH or All
>> in the family in their day, to Twin Peaks to The Sopranos to various PBS
>> series such as The Civil War, The Elegant Universe (NOVA), BBC dramas, etc.
>
> One person's jewel is another person's lump of coal. Of those I have
> not seen All in the Family, Twin Peaks, or The Sopranos. I have seen a
> few episodes of M*A*S*H. I sometimes like NOVA even if it does have to
> be watered down for a scientifically illiterate population.

I didn't imply that those I like would be anything you would like. Your
tastes may be entirely different. But that's for you to find.

NOVA has become less and less 'scientific' over the last years, I agree,
with occasional splashes of brilliance. I wouldn't agree that it's
watered down for scientific illiterates, but rather to make the science
more accessible to more people. Programs meant for Ph.D's alone don't
draw much of an audience. Further, a role and goal of PBS is education.

>> To believe it is all wasteland is to shut out some very good entertainment.
>
> I don't think it's all a wasteland, but I wouldn't go scouring Death
> Valley looking for pennies that tourists might dropped.

Ridiculous exaggeration.

First off there are a lot of reliable guides to point you at the best
that may suit your tastes and secondly, the television is right there in
the house presuming your wife will let you look.

>> Downton Abbey (British series shown on PBS) seems to be all the rage,
>> but I'd want to see it from the first season.
>
> There is an undeniable fascination with the British upper class. I seem
> to be immune. From the Brits I prefer silly comedies. I watched much of
> the original Upstairs Downstairs, and that was sufficient to last me a
> long time.

Again, I'm not suggesting _what_ you should watch, just that you could
find those jewels right there in your own home if you bothered. OTOH, I
don't really care, other than your broad brushing all of television is
effortless, lame judgmentalism.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

Davoud

Alan Browne:
> Again, I'm not suggesting _what_ you should watch, just that you could
> find those jewels right there in your own home if you bothered. OTOH, I
> don't really care, other than your broad brushing all of television is
> effortless, lame judgmentalism.

OK. In my effortless and lame judgement television isn't worth spit.
And I reiterate that one person's jewel is another person's lump of
coal.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Alan Browne

On 2012-01-17 19:05 , Davoud wrote:
> Alan Browne:
>> Again, I'm not suggesting _what_ you should watch, just that you could
>> find those jewels right there in your own home if you bothered. OTOH, I
>> don't really care, other than your broad brushing all of television is
>> effortless, lame judgmentalism.
>
> OK. In my effortless and lame judgement television isn't worth spit.
> And I reiterate that one person's jewel is another person's lump of
> coal.

I'd look up a nice quotation about closed minds but I've really wasted
too much time on this.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

Davoud

Alan Browne:
> >> Again, I'm not suggesting _what_ you should watch, just that you could
> >> find those jewels right there in your own home if you bothered. OTOH, I
> >> don't really care, other than your broad brushing all of television is
> >> effortless, lame judgmentalism.

Davoud:
> > OK. In my effortless and lame judgement television isn't worth spit.
> > And I reiterate that one person's jewel is another person's lump of
> > coal.

Alan Browne:
> I'd look up a nice quotation about closed minds but I've really wasted
> too much time on this.

Closed mind? Do you think that I dislike television without ever having
seen television!? I have seen television for 67 years and I think
that's giving it a fair try.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Doug Anderson

Davoud <star@sky.net> writes:

> Alan Browne:
> > >> Again, I'm not suggesting _what_ you should watch, just that you could
> > >> find those jewels right there in your own home if you bothered. OTOH, I
> > >> don't really care, other than your broad brushing all of television is
> > >> effortless, lame judgmentalism.
>
> Davoud:
> > > OK. In my effortless and lame judgement television isn't worth spit.
> > > And I reiterate that one person's jewel is another person's lump of
> > > coal.
>
> Alan Browne:
> > I'd look up a nice quotation about closed minds but I've really wasted
> > too much time on this.
>
> Closed mind? Do you think that I dislike television without ever having
> seen television!? I have seen television for 67 years and I think
> that's giving it a fair try.

If you've given it 67 years and you think none of it's worth spit, I
have to wonder why you didn't stop watching it sooner.

In any case, dismissing all television as worth spit makes as much
sense as dismissing all books as worth spit. Sure the volume of trash
dwarfs the volume of interesting stuff (in both genres). What of it?

Howard Brazee

On 18 Jan 2012 07:27:43 -0800, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Closed mind? Do you think that I dislike television without ever having
>> seen television!? I have seen television for 67 years and I think
>> that's giving it a fair try.
>
>If you've given it 67 years and you think none of it's worth spit, I
>have to wonder why you didn't stop watching it sooner.

Television has changed considerably in that time. Mainly for the
better. And certainly options to watch specialty channels such as
National Geographic have improved. It is reasonable to periodically
check out anything that changes this much.

That said, I also don't watch much TV these days. I have also
changed. I don't have 67 years of experience watching TV, as we
didn't get a TV until the late 1950s.


--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

Alan Browne

On 2012-01-18 08:50 , Davoud wrote:
> Alan Browne:
>>>> Again, I'm not suggesting _what_ you should watch, just that you could
>>>> find those jewels right there in your own home if you bothered. OTOH, I
>>>> don't really care, other than your broad brushing all of television is
>>>> effortless, lame judgmentalism.
>
> Davoud:
>>> OK. In my effortless and lame judgement television isn't worth spit.
>>> And I reiterate that one person's jewel is another person's lump of
>>> coal.
>
> Alan Browne:
>> I'd look up a nice quotation about closed minds but I've really wasted
>> too much time on this.
>
> Closed mind? Do you think that I dislike television without ever having
> seen television!? I have seen television for 67 years and I think
> that's giving it a fair try.

I doubt it.


--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

Davoud

Davoud:
> > Closed mind? Do you think that I dislike television without ever having
> > seen television!? I have seen television for 67 years and I think
> > that's giving it a fair try.

Doug Anderson:
> If you've given it 67 years and you think none of it's worth spit, I
> have to wonder why you didn't stop watching it sooner.

> In any case, dismissing all television as worth spit makes as much
> sense as dismissing all books as worth spit. Sure the volume of trash
> dwarfs the volume of interesting stuff (in both genres). What of it?

Commenting without having read all of a thread makes for non sequiturs.
I didn't say that I dislike every program on television. I didn't
question anyone else's judgement for liking television. I didn't say
that television is not worth spit to you or anyone else. It should be
clear from the various comments that I have made that I speak only for
myself. Now I have people telling me what I /should/ like. Sheesh! Is
it 1984? Has the cult of television become so ingrained that
non-watchers are defined as deviants? Will I be consigned to a
re-education camp?

I'm an astrophotographer and nature photographer and videographer
<http://www.primordial-light.com>,
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/> with a contribution to
NASA/JPL cometary studies. Lots of folks are happy to sit and watch
PBS's brilliantly filmed nature programs (snuff flicks, by and large,
in /my/ opinion). That's fine with me if that's what people want to do,
but more than 60 of my photographs and videos appear in the
Encyclopedia of Life (eol.org). To my amazement, with thousands of
photographers contributing to the EOL, there are a few species for
which mine are the only photographs on the site, which is very nearly
one million pages in extent. I'm a writer and a reader. I'm an advocate
and volunteer for science education. I work without pay for local
schools and for the community college. I volunteer in buying and
delivering groceries for shut-ins. I do free Macintosh computer
consulting for not-for-profits, seniors, and the handicapped. I value
my private time greatly because it is clear that I will never run out
of money, but I will most certainly run out of time one day. Until then
I want to do and to learn by doing, rather than sit by and passively
watch others doing.

Call me closed-minded if you will, but protestations that I should be
doing something other than what I like to do are likely to fall on deaf
ears.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm