It's time to move Fox News to AT-60

[Lyle_JP]

I can see the reason for putting Fox News, MSNBC, and CNBC on AT-120 (AT-100 at the time) originally. CNN was the cable news channel that had to be part of the basic channel (AT-50 at the time) line-up, whereas the others were upstarts with narrow audiences that could be considered "specialty" news channels.

But times have changed, and Dish Network should change with them. Fox News now has higher ratings than CNN, MSNBC and CNN Headline News COMBINED, according to this article from Reuters. (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=televisionNews&storyID=6360856)

Please, no discussions of politics (save it for the Potpourri forum). Nearly every cable company out there now has Fox News as part of their basic channel line-up, as does DirecTV (and that was before Rupert bought the company). There is no longer any logical reason for Dish to put Fox News in the more expensive "special interest" channel tier while keeping CNN in AT-60.

[Cyclone]

I agree, but I'm still gonna stick with AT-180.

[Link]

I think Dish needs to redo all their packages. AT180 is $7 more than Directv's Total Choice Plus. I don't care if you do get extra movie channels and Sirrus radio with the AT180. It would make more sense to put Encore with Starz-Encore and put TMCXtra and West with Showtime.

Some of the basic channels in it like Hallmark and GAC should not be in the high end package. $7 is quite a difference in the packages when most of the channels are the same.

[finniganps]

I agree on the Fox news comment - I wish I got it with my AT60....ah well.

[Geronimo]

I don't disagree. But who is the holdup DISH or Fox?

[kmcnamara]

My father-in-law just signed up with Dish and got their AT60 as a part of the DHA plan. When he found out it didn't include Fox News, he called and griped out the Dish CSR telling her that Fox should be included. Of course, she just made a note in his record.

He then proceeded to upgrade to the next higher package. :D

[Cholly]

I can get Fox News on TWC here for $44.68 plus tax and fees per month (analog cable without set top box).
You can get AT120 for $34.99 a month (one receiver)
The difference between AT60 and AT120 is less than the average cost of two trips to Mickey D's a month. a coupla packs of cig's (better off without 'em anyway) or a beer a week at your local pub. Sheesh! :lol:

[boba]

Stating Fox News is in Directv's basic package is comparing Apples to Oranges AT-60 $29.99 VS. Total Choice $39.99. AT-120 at $39.99 is a more accurate comparison but then Fox News is included.

[Link]

I can get Fox News on TWC here for $44.68 plus tax and fees per month (analog cable without set top box).
You can get AT120 for $34.99 a month (one receiver)
The difference between AT60 and AT120 is less than the average cost of two trips to Mickey D's a month. a coupla packs of cig's (better off without 'em anyway) or a beer a week at your local pub. Sheesh! :lol:

Yes but isn't that 44.68 for unlimited rooms (or maybe up to 5) in your home plus your local channels. AT120 + locals is $39.99 plus a second room receiver would be $4.99 so that would total 44.98 so really the cost is the same.

That's one thing Dish or DTV never point out additional rooms can run you $5-$15 extra depending on how many you want, so then you end up paying the same or more than cable although I think satellite reception is most likely clearer than cable.

[kb7oeb]

Stating Fox News is in Directv's basic package is comparing Apples to Oranges AT-60 $29.99 VS. Total Choice $39.99. AT-120 at $39.99 is a more accurate comparison but then Fox News is included.

I don't think Select choice from Directv has fox either

[Geronimo]

If it is analog cable you could theoretically split it. Satellite is $5.00 extra per receiver after the first. But I dont know about cable being "Cleaner" than satellite. I have cable in the den (because of the cable internet) and it is quite grainy. Cable quality varies greatly from one system to another. Digital cable is good but then again there are receiver fees then too.


And if our handy dandy package comparison table is right the AT!20 is actually cheaper than the Total Choice package without locals and the saem price with.

In reality i think that the AT60 is sort of a come on. It allows DISH to advertise a low rate but I doubt that it has many takers. But perhaps I am wrong.

[Lyle_JP]

I don't disagree. But who is the holdup DISH or Fox?
It would have to be Dish. Content providers always want their channels seen by as many people as possible. If a channel is on AT-60, then everyone can see it.*

*Yes, I know Dish allows people to have certain a la carte packages without having any basic channel packages for a nominal fee, but this is less than 1% of subs so really not worth talking about.

[James Long]

I can see the reason for putting Fox News, MSNBC, and CNBC on AT-120 (AT-100 at the time) originally. CNN was the cable news channel that had to be part of the basic channel (AT-50 at the time) line-up,I believe it was actually AT-40 at the time. CNN was one of the cornerstone networks of the fledgling E* service.

Channels are generally not added to the lowest package in order to keep it's price down. It isn't a question of ratings or personal preferences.

If Fox is that good people won't mind paying the upgrade to AT-120.

JL

[Cholly]

Yes but isn't that 44.68 for unlimited rooms (or maybe up to 5) in your home plus your local channels. AT120 + locals is $39.99 plus a second room receiver would be $4.99 so that would total 44.98 so really the cost is the same.

That's one thing Dish or DTV never point out additional rooms can run you $5-$15 extra depending on how many you want, so then you end up paying the same or more than cable although I think satellite reception is most likely clearer than cable.
Ah, yes, but if you want "Digital Cable", TWC charges you $15 additional for the first receiver and $7.90 for each additional digital STB. That's where D* and E* have an advantage. My real point was the upcharge from AT60 to AT120 not being huge. It seems that a lot of people think they can't afford that extra $10 a month on their dbs subscription, but will blow several times that munch on other "nonessentials". :shrug:

[dummyproof]

I can see the reason for putting Fox News, MSNBC, and CNBC on AT-120 (AT-100 at the time) originally. CNN was the cable news channel that had to be part of the basic channel (AT-50 at the time) line-up, whereas the others were upstarts with narrow audiences that could be considered "specialty" news channels.

But times have changed, and Dish Network should change with them. Fox News now has higher ratings than CNN, MSNBC and CNN Headline News COMBINED, according to this article from Reuters. (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=televisionNews&storyID=6360856)

Please, no discussions of politics (save it for the Potpourri forum). Nearly every cable company out there now has Fox News as part of their basic channel line-up, as does DirecTV (and that was before Rupert bought the company). There is no longer any logical reason for Dish to put Fox News in the more expensive "special interest" channel tier while keeping CNN in AT-60.

So I'm to infer from your post that you are a) an AT-120 sub, and b) you wish Dish would put Fox News in the AT-60 tier so that you can downgrade to AT-60 package... correct?

[James Long]

So I'm to infer from your post that you are a) an AT-120 sub, and b) you wish Dish would put Fox News in the AT-60 tier so that you can downgrade to AT-60 package... correct?I'm guessing he just has a limited understanding of the tiers.There is no longer any logical reason for Dish to put Fox News in the more expensive "special interest" channel tier while keeping CNN in AT-60.I don't consider AT-120 "special interest" ... it is just more of an expanded choice. And as boba noted, E*'s lowest tier and D*'s lowest tier are not a fair comparison. For the same price as D*'s lowest one can get E*'s second tier ... which includes Fox News.

D* second tier could be better described as "special interest" as it is only a few channels (15 video and 5 audio) for $3. E*'s second tier adds regional sports, 29 other channels, video and 83 audio channels.

AT-60 is more like offering "the original AT-40 plan plus all the channels we added for free over the years" than choosing the most basic channels of the full lineup.

JL

[Lyle_JP]

So I'm to infer from your post that you are a) an AT-120 sub, and b) you wish Dish would put Fox News in the AT-60 tier so that you can downgrade to AT-60 package... correct?

I am indeed an AT-120 sub, but I've no intention of downgrading, as I love FX and Animal Planet too much. I just think that at this point, Fox News has reached the status of indispensible station, like ESPN, CNN, USA, or Discovery.

[MarkA]

"My father-in-law just signed up with Dish and got their AT60 as a part of the DHA plan. When he found out it didn't include Fox News, he called and griped out the Dish CSR telling her that Fox should be included. Of course, she just made a note in his record.

He then proceeded to upgrade to the next higher package."

My grandma just did the same in August...

But I agree it should be in the AT60 package

[dummyproof]

I am indeed an AT-120 sub, but I've no intention of downgrading, as I love FX and Animal Planet too much. I just think that at this point, Fox News has reached the status of indispensible station, like ESPN, CNN, USA, or Discovery.
I just see a bit of "irony"(to put it lightly) with your original post.
Specifically this statement:
Please, no discussions of politics (save it for the Potpourri forum).
The mere fact that you believe a right wing, Republican slanted "news"(propaganda) channel such as this, should get more exposure, is in itself a "political" statement.
Only a conservative Republican would call for this propaganda machine to be placed into a lower tier. You yourself have stated that you do not want this for your benefit for subscription reasons, therefore you must want this right wing propaganda to get exposed to those currently subbing the AT-60 package.
Besides, there already is a "real" unbiased news channel in the AT-60 tier... CNN.

[James Long]

Only a conservative Republican would call for this propaganda machine to be placed into a lower tier.Nahh, I'm one of those and I don't consider FNC propaganda, I don't like it, and I believe it's in the right tier (because tiers are NOT chosen based on politics, as earlier stated). I prefer CNN and CNNi. :D But that doesn't affect my opinion of where FNC belongs. There are plenty of channels I don't watch. :)

(And yes, I'm sure I'm a Republican. I voted for Dole. :eek2: )

JL

[garypen]

Actually, the fact that he already receives FNC as part of his subscription, yet was complaining that it wasn't on every tier, was a political comment in and of itself. Nothing wrong with that per se, except for his request for "no discussion of politics". That might be considered a wee bit hypocritical, n'est pas.

BTW, since when did USA Network become indispensable? :lol:

[SimpleSimon]

I don't agree that it was a political thing - he came right out with the correct reason at the start: "Fox News now has higher ratings than CNN, MSNBC and CNN Headline News COMBINED". Whether viewed as cheerleading for 'your side' or an insight into 'the enemy' or whatever, the channel is popular.

[Geronimo]

It would have to be Dish. Content providers always want their channels seen by as many people as possible. If a channel is on AT-60, then everyone can see it.*

*Yes, I know Dish allows people to have certain a la carte packages without having any basic channel packages for a nominal fee, but this is less than 1% of subs so really not worth talking about.


That is NOT necessarily the case. Some content providers charge more than their competitors and sell themselves as an inducement to sub to a higher tier. True they want to be seen by as many peopleas possible but they also want to keep the total revenue from distributors up and if they reduced their rate to apoint that would make it price competitive they might lower total revenue. I don't know.

While more is better the whole point of AT 60 is a low cost package. I don't know what Fox is asking but it may well be that they simply ask for more than the TW channel and DISH has gone with the lower price in that tier.

There is just too much we don't know here. If it could be done within the current price structure it might make sense. I simply do not know whether it can or cannot. But I would not assume that the problem MUST be Charlie.


I think it would be great to add more channels to every tier. But I don't know why this particular one is not in the AT 60.

[Cholly]

BTW, since when did USA Network become indispensable? :lol:
It was indispensable when "La Femme Nikita" was on. Peta Wilson is hot! :heybaby:
Actually, USA also serves as a backup sports net for golf, tennis, etc. There are others I could do without (Fox News included).
As to politics, I guess I'm a Mugwump. (for those of you not old enough to remember, a Mugwump is a bird who sits on a fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other) :D I'm a registered Republican who often votes in the other column.

[James Long]

I don't agree that it was a political thing - he came right out with the correct reason at the start: "Fox News now has higher ratings than CNN, MSNBC and CNN Headline News COMBINED". Whether viewed as cheerleading for 'your side' or an insight into 'the enemy' or whatever, the channel is popular.This ongoing debate seems to be much like Fox News. Those who agree with the message of Fox News and enjoy ethnocentric flag waiving don't see anything wrong with the way FNC presents the news. If the politics are yours they are easier to swallow. :)

The point is that the packages ARE NOT based on what are the most popular channels. Period. AT-60 is ABSOLUTELY NOT the most popular or most watched cable channels in America, despite the name. The fact that FNC is at AT-120 is not evidence of a liberal push to define FNC as "not one of the top channels". Only a FNC viewer would believe that it is. :D

JL

[swing]

The current AT60 is a descendent of the original AT40. AT40 was the selection of basic channels that Echostar had originally agreed to carry when the Dish Network services launched. Not all of the channels were popular. Dish had some obscure channels like America's Voice. It was whatever Echostar could get through contracts, to get their programming services launched.

Later, new channels were added, but to higher leveled packages. For example, Univision was added later, though it remains (and has been) a more popular channel than America's Voice.

Mainly PI channels have been added to the most basic service.

Of the more mainstream cable networks, MTV2 (originally a Top100 channel) was added later, part of a Viacom deal. Viacom wanted to increase exposure for this channel, and pressured Echostar to move it from AT100 to AT50(now 60).

Fox could demand similar for its network, but it doesn't seem they need to right now. FNC is doing so well, even without the lowest Echostar package exposure.

For E*, There wouldn't be benefit to move services down from AT120 to AT60. It devalues the purpose of upgrading to AT120, it could mean loss of revenue if customers downgraded. Competitor DirecTV doesn't offer a near equivalent, as its a moot point.

As for the comment "I think Dish needs to redo all their packages."
I think this would lead too many major changes, along with programming contracts considerations. It's probably easier to work with the status quo, and add channels here and there, where possible. Also, customers wouldn't be subject to confusion.

[Jaspear]

For E*, There wouldn't be benefit to move services down from AT120 to AT60.

Why not just move CNN to AT-120? All political biases would be even, Dish would benefit and this thread would be moot! :lol:

[swing]

Maybe, customers would complain. In general, it would be too cable like, giving Echostar a similar reputation for moving channels to higher tiers.

[garypen]

I don't agree that it was a political thing - he came right out with the correct reason at the start: "Fox News now has higher ratings than CNN, MSNBC and CNN Headline News COMBINED". Whether viewed as cheerleading for 'your side' or an insight into 'the enemy' or whatever, the channel is popular.Yes. It's very popular. But, he already has it. As such, it's political cheerleading, as you say.

[garypen]

Why not just move CNN to AT-120? All political biases would be even, Dish would benefit and this thread would be moot! :lol:The difference, of course, is that CNN is a news channel, and FNC is an opinion/editorial channel. (Only in the mind of an FNC fan, would facts be considered an opposing viewpoint.:) )

There is no equivalent balancing channel to FNC, unless you were to consider a PI channel like FSTV or a possible future AirAmerica TV. (Perhaps the upcoming Al Gore owned "news" network?)

[James Long]

There is no equivalent balancing channel to FNC, unless you were to consider a PI channel like FSTV or a possible future AirAmerica TV. (Perhaps the upcoming Al Gore owned "news" network?)Will Al be the president of his news network? :D

JL

[garypen]

Not if the Supreme Court has anything to say about it.

[FTA Michael]

"My father-in-law just signed up with Dish and got their AT60 as a part of the DHA plan. When he found out it didn't include Fox News, he called and griped out the Dish CSR telling her that Fox should be included. Of course, she just made a note in his record.

He then proceeded to upgrade to the next higher package."

My grandma just did the same in August...Unless this is asking why McDonalds doesn't lower its Big Mac prices, the question is whether Dish is smarter to keep FN at 120 or drop it to 60.

FOR FN on 60: Might attract more cable subs to jump to the cheap Dish package. But I wonder whether/how much profit E* makes on AT60 subs.

AGAINST FN on 60: Folks just like the two you mentioned. I'm confident that the profit margins on AT120 are better than AT60, and every upgrader is another reason to keep FN where it is.

Note than in the interest of fairness :sure: if any current 60 channel were moved to 120, it would lose too many AT60 subs to justify the increased profit from those who would upgrade. (Or the money saved by not paying programming fees for that channel for the 60 subs.)

[Paladin]

Not if the Supreme Court has anything to say about it.

At least with all the recounts, Gore will have something to do with his life besides getting fat. :D

[dishrich]

Actually, D* DID move Fox news to Select Choice, but since D* NO longer offers that package to new subs, does it really matter... ;) ;)

[James Long]

Actually, D* DID move Fox news to Select Choice, but since D* NO longer offers that package to new subs, does it really matter... ;) ;)D*'s packaging is a bit bent anyways. Lowest package "125 channels (130 w/locals)". Next step "145 channels (150 w/locals)" for $3 more.

Then they blow the roof off by making all additional channels TCP (or alacarte packages).

D*'s push is to sell all the channels as basic, with only a few optional.
E* has the sub-basic package (AT-60), the basic package (AT-120), and the optional package (AT-180) with bigger channel count steps.

JL

[dishrich]

While this may be true, D* TC package is a MUCH better value than AT120. Other than Sirius radio & a couple extra Spanish channels, TC has EVERYTHING AT120 has, PLUS another dozen video channels that are NOT in AT120, FOR SAME PRICE - how bent is THAT. (sorry, but I do NOT count all the PI channels that DISH carries either - we all know VERY few people even know they exist)
Also sorry, but I do NOT think that Sirius is as good as having 12 more video channels like Fox Movies, Fine Living, Trio or Outdoor Life.

[garypen]

You know, Rich. I've heard that somewhere before.

[garypen]

At least with all the recounts, Gore will have something to do with his life besides getting fat. :DHuh? I have no idea what that means, except perhaps you don't like fat people? Maybe a constitutional ban of fat people will solve that problem.

[James Long]

While this may be true, D* TC package is a MUCH better value than AT120.Yawn ...

Yeah, 78 channels in common between AT120 and TC, 53 of those channels also available in AT60 for $10 less. D* has 12 regular, 1 shopping and 3 PIs AT120 doesn't; AT120 has 6 regular, 9 shopping and 10 PIs Total Choice doesn't have.

Big Yawn ...

BTW, does D* have CCTV9 and CCSPF available to all customers like E*? IIRC D*'s CCTV channels are tucked away on 110 and are not listed as part of TC on D*'s site. I havn't added them to the numbers above.

JL

[Steve Mehs]

Oh brother…

Yeah, 78 channels in common between AT120 and TC, 53 of those channels also available in AT60 for $10 less. D* has 12 regular, 1 shopping and 3 PIs AT120 doesn't; AT120 has 6 regular, 9 shopping and 10 PIs Total Choice doesn't have.

Big Yawn ...

Not a big yawn for someone who wants Bloomberg, CNBC World, National Geographic or a few of the other channels Dish has in AT180, that DirecTV has in TC.

BTW, does D* have CCTV9 and CCSPF available to all customers like E*? IIRC D*'s CCTV channels are tucked away on 110 and are not listed as part of TC on D*'s site. I havn't added them to the numbers above.

DirecTV has CCTV9 on 119, and what difference does it make if it's 'tucked' up there. Dish has public interest channels on 61.5/148. As far as the website, I don't see how you can get any clearer then this. http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/packages/cctv9.dsp

[James Long]

Oh brother…Yes. D* and E* have different lineups. Big whoop. Perhaps I should go troll the D* forum like D*'rs do here?DirecTV has CCTV9 on 119, and what difference does it make if it's 'tucked' up there. Dish has public interest channels on 61.5/148. As far as the website, I don't see how you can get any clearer then this. http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/packages/cctv9.dspWhat part of: CCTV channels are tucked away on 110 and are not listed as part of TC on D*'s site. is not understandable? It's not listed as part of TC. True or false? How many logical steps away from that page is the one you found for CCTV9?

E* just added CCTV9 (and CCSPF) and they don't have the new channel(s) on their charts the first day, but they do have it on the "channels with numbers" option - one logical step away. And one way of knowing the channels are there.

JL

[garypen]

AT120 has 6 regular, 9 shopping and 10 PIs Total Choice doesn't have.Remind me again which 9 "regular" channels that Dish has in AT120 that is missing from TC? IIRC, a couple of them were duplicate west coast feeds of Spanish language channels, as well as an add'l horse racing channel.

I can almost picture Charlie Ergen giving a speech reminiscent of Mel Brooks as the Hon. William J. Le Petomane in Blazing Saddles, celebrating turning the State Hospital for the Insane into the William J. Le Petomane Memorial Gambling Casino for the Insane:

"Ladies and gentlemen, adding these channels to Dish AT120 is a great leap forward in the treament of the Hispanic Compulsive Gambler."

[Steve Mehs]

No it's not listed on the TC channels list, never realized it until now, as for logical steps, I don't know, everyone thinks differently, I would go straight to international like I did, since it is a foreign based channel. But let's just say your right, DirecTVs page is completely illogical, because I don't feel like arguing some stupid point, about a provider who I thankfully no longer support.

[justdaved]

With a "Fair & Balanced" news network like Fox News why do we need any other sources of news anway?

[James Long]

AT120 has 6 regular, 9 shopping and 10 PIs Total Choice doesn't have.Remind me again which 9 "regular" channels that Dish has in AT120 that is missing from TC?Remind me again where you got nine regular channels. I wrote "6". :D
It's still old news. 78 channels in common, 53 available in AT60, AT120 and TC.

At least E* isn't putting the horse race gambling in a "premium" package and charging the subscriber extra for it. That's "premium" programming? Hardly!

JL

[garypen]

Oops. 6. My mistake. (An honest one, since the number 9 followed the word "regular".)

OK then. Remind me again which 6 channels are in AT120 that aren't in TC? I'd be happy to compare them again to the 13 or so that are in TC that Dish either puts in their premium tier, or doesn't carry at all.

I get a kick out of seeing someone try to spin it so Horse Racing and Univision West (or whatever it was) somehow is more "compelling" than NFL Network, Bloomberg, Fox Movies, Hallmark, Nat'l Geographic, Fuel, Oxygen, etc.

[James Long]

Do your own homework, troll. And stop spouting lies. WHERE did I say that either network's programming was "more compelling" than the other? All I said was that we've been through this STUPID comparison before and its a bore.

So what? So D* has 12 channels (not 13) that I don't get and I'd never watch. Big flipping deal.

JL

[garypen]

Do your own homework, troll. And stop spouting lies. WHERE did I say that either network's programming was "more compelling" than the other? All I said was that we've been through this STUPID comparison before and its a bore.

So what? So D* has 12 channels (not 13) that I don't get and I'd never watch. Big flipping deal.

JLThe big flippin' deal is that it makes TC a better value than AT120. That's all.

Do you take debate lessons from Bill O'Reilly, by any chance. Your styles are strikingly similar.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll or a liar. Also, and this one's very important, you are not always right.

Please try and keep those two things in mind when having a discussion with somebody.

You also might try and keep the personal stuff out of the debate. It makes one's argument that much less compelling.

[Paladin]

Huh? I have no idea what that means, except perhaps you don't like fat people? Maybe a constitutional ban of fat people will solve that problem.

I'm sorry, I forgot that there are still people out there that take Gore seriously. :rolleyes: Recently Al Gore has put on a good size amount of weight. It was a joke, a joke about Al Gore. Not that he would laugh, robots aren't programmed to laugh yet. :D

[Jason Nipp]

Huh? I have no idea what that means, except perhaps you don't like fat people? Maybe a constitutional ban of fat people will solve that problem.

The McD's lobbyists wouldn't let that happen. Banning fat people would bankrupt the "would you like some fries with that?" industry.... :D

[James Long]

The big flippin' deal is that it makes TC a better value than AT120. That's all.In your narrow opinion. Hmmm. Narrow. Do you like Faux News? :D Sounds like their style. Assume you are right but not show your work.

JL

[Mickdog]

In your narrow opinion. Hmmm. Narrow. Do you like Faux News? :D Sounds like their style. Assume you are right but not show your work.

JL
Well, I guess that would go with your Faux Help! Talk about Narrow! :hurah: :lol: :eek2:

[garypen]

In your narrow opinion. Hmmm. Narrow. Do you like Faux News? :D Sounds like their style. Assume you are right but not show your work.

JLGive it up dude. I have "shown the work" about this one issue. If you were to present those facts to a group of people who are not customers of either service, and have no weird emotional attachment to either, the vast majority would no doubt choose TC as the better value over AT120.

Why do you persistently argue against such an obvious conclusion? Yes. Obvious conclusion. Not "narrow opinion". The narrow opinion would belong to the few individuals that would feel there is no difference, or the even fewer individuals that would find AT120 to be the better value.

Be a man, and admit you are wrong on this one. You're still right about all that esoteric technical sh*t about the satellites themselves. (At least I assume you're right, as I couldn't give a rat's patoot about most of it.) It certainly sounds right, and I would never debate you about most of that stuff. I'd probably be wrong about a lot of it, if I did.

[James Long]

For a person who complains about personal comments, you sure lay them out with ease. Stupid hypocryte. Longwinded rants to every reply? Oh well.

JL

[garypen]

The McD's lobbyists wouldn't let that happen. Banning fat people would bankrupt the "would you like some fries with that?" industry.... :DSupersize me is arriving from Netflix today. Oughta be interesting. Although, not much of a surprise, really.

You mean I'm gonna get fat, have higher cholesterol, and flirt with diabetes, if I were to eat nithing but McDonalds for 3 months? I'm shocked...SHOCKED!

Just take a trip to Wal-Mart, and look around. There's your "supersize me" right there. :hurah:

[Mickdog]

For a person who complains about personal comments, you sure lay them out with ease. Stupid hypocryte. Longwinded rants to every reply? Oh well.

JL
Boohoo Bahaaa! Like you do not do the same? When mortar rounds come your way do you lay artillery on the flanks behind the launch point, or on the spot? Hmmm, good question isn't it? :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

[garypen]

For a person who complains about personal comments, you sure lay them out with ease. Stupid hypocryte. Longwinded rants to every reply? Oh well.

JLThe only personal comments I ever make are IN RESPONSE to others. And, even when I do, I rarely resort to name-calling, as you so easily do.

One man's "long-winded rants" are another man's rational responses to another guy's long-winded rants.

It's obvious that you're past the point of rational discussion on this issue. No point in going on about it with you. However, I'd appreciate if you don't butt in to this topic when I'm discussing it with others, since you have nothing rational to add to the debate. Thanks.

[James Long]

Sorry Gary, but I'll post when I want. I don't respect you or your trollish behavior. The point was made, there was no point in repeating it. That's the troll. And once again three more paragraphs follow a couple lines. Just can't stop being verbose?

The debate ended a couple of days ago. At least the thread titled debate. The other debate ended last week and was dragged in here by the usual suspects. OK Gary, you were right once. No reason to post it in every thread that mentions D*. It's old news. And if you bother to read my posts you'd see that was the point. OLD NEWS. Move on. Let's talk about FOX NEWS or assume that this thread has run its course.

JL

[Mickdog]

Sorry Gary, but I'll post when I want. I don't respect you or your trollish behavior. The point was made, there was no point in repeating it. That's the troll. And once again three more paragraphs follow a couple lines. Just can't stop being verbose?

The debate ended a couple of days ago. At least the thread titled debate. The other debate ended last week and was dragged in here by the usual suspects. OK Gary, you were right once. No reason to post it in every thread that mentions D*. It's old news. And if you bother to read my posts you'd see that was the point. OLD NEWS. Move on. Let's talk about FOX NEWS or assume that this thread has run its course.

JL
Oh here we go with the Troll thing again! Get your head out of fantasy land and read a little Tacci, then you might understand how digital works in relation to voltage! Oh I forgot, Its all about signal, but the equipment has to deal with the signal by using voltage!!!!! Whaaaaa!!!!!!!! :hurah: :lol: :eek2: :nono2:

[Jason Nipp]

flirt with diabetes...

I do more than flirt...You don't have to be fat to have Type 1 Diabetes.

Not fake...This is my Gloucometer... (Normal gloucose level is between 70 and 120 mg/DL)

http://www.dbstalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2358

[James Long]

... you might understand how digital works in relation to voltage! Oh I forgot, Its all about signal, but the equipment has to deal with the signal by using voltage!!!!!I'm sorry that I can't dumb down my explainations to meet your educational and experience level. I'm PAID to deal with RF and digital signals --- and paid well enough. I have to deal with satellite and terrestial signals and interference and usually have to leave what I know out of the forums as it's above the level of simple DBS reception.

BTW: Every electronic device uses voltage. That is (in part) what makes it "electronic".

JL

[Mickdog]

I'm sorry that I can't dumb down my explainations to meet your educational and experience level. I'm PAID to deal with RF and digital signals --- and paid well enough. I have to deal with satellite and terrestial signals and interference and usually have to leave what I know out of the forums as it's above the level of simple DBS reception.

BTW: Every electronic device uses voltage. That is (in part) what makes it "electronic".

JL
And?

[Cholly]

:icon_peac Cool down, guys! Y'all sound like a bunch of jr. high kids in the school yard (this from a Grumpy Old Man). :grin:
:backtotop