Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 629064" data-attributes="member: 177">Sorry, folks, but this one will be long...You want me to promise ahead of time that I will be convinced by your data?  That's buying a pig in a poke.  No deal.  I can promise to review the data you submit with an open mind.  I will not agree to call it proof before seeing it, knowing who gathered it, and how.Fine.  I disagree.  I feel the number of serialized shows in sci-fi is about the same as in other grenres.  Unless we're going to sit down and define "serialized" and "sci-fi show" in depth, so that we could actually take a count, we shall have to remain in disagreement. I personally don't feel the point is so important as to go to the bother.I have not decided if Firefly was undercounted or not.  I wasn't the one who brought up undercounting, or the idea that the Neilsen's were broken.  I discussed the topic - and stated my uncertainty - because someone else mentioned it.  Topics do drift, you know. As for the rest - from where I sit, I was not wrong the first time.  I mentioned "maximally funded public TV".  I stated that I disagree with your position that maximally funded public TV is mutually exclusive with extensive corporate TV, and gave basic support for that position.  You still insist that I have a plan to eliminate the ratings system through public TV, though I have no such thing, and have already stated multiple times that I feel corporate TV and ratings systems can stay in place.  That is at the very best you misreading me gravely.  Right.  I'm sorry, but since impoliteness wasn't my intent, I feel a bit put out by the accusation.  As I'm only human, I will vent my frustration in a single bout of peevishness - I wasn't the one who first thought laughing in all capital letters was an appropriate technique in polite discussion.  Pot, kettle.  People in glass houses, plank from your own eye, hoist with your own petard, Golden Rule, and all that.  You're in a poor position to take umbrage at sarcasm, sir, since you already used it yourself.  Thus endeth my peevishness.(For the readers at home, I made the post Mistwell is quoting on January 19th.)First, you choose a very interesting place from which to take a quote.  Earlier in the very same paragraph, I state, "While I'm not certain, I can accept the notion that the Neilsen system is 'broken'..".  An explicit statement that I am not sure whether the system is accurate preceeds your inference in the vary same paragraph, but you seem to ignore it.Second, there is no implication of which you speak.  You seem to ignore the presence of the big two-letter word - if.  I speak about what is likely true if the system is broken.  I fully leave open the possibility that the system isn't broken - but that case is trivial, uninteresting, and wasn't the topic of discussion at the moment.  Not addressing the "not broken" option explicitly does not consititute a statement that I believe the system is broken.Third, there are many ways to fail to make a good faith attempt at things.  Nefariousness is one.  But incompetance, casual disregard, and difference of opinion are also possibilities.  There are others, as well.  I made no claim or implication that skulduggery was afoot.  That comes only from you.Fourth, I never presented public television as a method of eliminating the ratings system.  I presented public TV as what it has traditionally been in the USA - a way to see a show that wouldn't survive the cutthroat world of corporate TV and the whims of the broad viewing public.  I presented publicly funded production of a way to make a poorly rated show profitable for corporate channels, explicitly stating that it happens within the rating system.  This "Umbran wants to eliminate corporate TV and the Neilsen system" is a boogeyman created in your own head, which I have tried to dispel repeatedly, with rational support.  But you maintain it despite my protestations.So, you are wrong about many things here.  Do you wish to explain this rather substantial list of failures to correctly characterize and read my position?  It's a bit too much, and too deep, and too concentrated to explain away as the occasional slip-up.  I'm afraid the only reasonable thing I can guess is that you've become so heated in your defense of "the system" that you no longer pay much attention to what's being said.  It happens occasionally, no big deal.  My recent reminder to you to pay closer attention was intended to get you to look beyond your own heated temper, to see that I am not the target you think I am.</blockquote>

Verification