🚀 go-pugleaf

Barry OGrady wrote...

> Television 4 is now on 64.
> It has no EPG and no subtitles.

Probably because they know if they display an EPG people will see the shit that
they're broadcasting and will avoid it.

We have limited bandwidth for digital television and they want to waste it on
shit like that...

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 02:48:15 +1000, Marts <marts@ymail.com> wrote:

>Barry OGrady wrote...
>
>> Television 4 is now on 64.
>> It has no EPG and no subtitles.
>
>Probably because they know if they display an EPG people will see the shit that
>they're broadcasting and will avoid it.
>
>We have limited bandwidth for digital television and they want to waste it on
>shit like that...

It looks like they are just testing it ATM because there is nothing
interesting.

What channel is this exactly?  Is it a community TV station or commercial 
station and if so, which one?

Liron

"Barry OGrady"  wrote in message 
news:na9r77t7hiihqmo7su2u986d68dsc1fm1h@4ax.com...

Television 4 is now on 64.
It has no EPG and no subtitles. 

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:31:36 +1000, Barry OGrady
<atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 02:48:15 +1000, Marts <marts@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>>Barry OGrady wrote...
>>
>>> Television 4 is now on 64.
>>> It has no EPG and no subtitles.
>>
>>Probably because they know if they display an EPG people will see the shit that
>>they're broadcasting and will avoid it.
>>
>>We have limited bandwidth for digital television and they want to waste it on
>>shit like that...
>
>It looks like they are just testing it ATM because there is nothing
>interesting.

That applies to pretty much all the content on FTA digital. Utter
shite!

ChannelBT is the only way to go.

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 19:18:11 +1000, "Liron"
<nomail@sick.of.getting.spam> wrote:

>What channel is this exactly?  Is it a community TV station or commercial 
>station and if so, which one?

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

>Liron
>
>"Barry OGrady"  wrote in message 
>news:na9r77t7hiihqmo7su2u986d68dsc1fm1h@4ax.com...
>
>Television 4 is now on 64.
>It has no EPG and no subtitles. 
>

On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:34:10 +1100, news@six.now wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:31:36 +1000, Barry OGrady
><atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 02:48:15 +1000, Marts <marts@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Barry OGrady wrote...
>>>
>>>> Television 4 is now on 64.
>>>> It has no EPG and no subtitles.
>>>
>>>Probably because they know if they display an EPG people will see the shit that
>>>they're broadcasting and will avoid it.
>>>
>>>We have limited bandwidth for digital television and they want to waste it on
>>>shit like that...
>>
>>It looks like they are just testing it ATM because there is nothing
>>interesting.
>
>That applies to pretty much all the content on FTA digital. Utter
>shite!

Pawn Stars. Hard Core Pawn. Repo. American Pickers. etc.

In answer to your URL, which was about posting at the bottom instead of the 
top, the reasons why I top post rather than bottom post is:

1 I used to be a bottom poster too.  Then one day, everyone started top 
posting, and although I resisted, I eventually saw the light.

2) The new material in a message is the most important part of the message, 
and having it at the top means that people have quick access to the most 
important information.  Having to scroll through hundreds of lines of 
material they have probably read before or don't care about just to find a 
line or two of new material is a waste of time, and having to do so again 
and again for message after message after message is even more so.

3) The best way to understand a thread is to read through older messages. 
Reading through older material in the current message doesn't usually work 
because the material is usually incomplete, and the most important parts, 
e.g. the original message, are the most likely parts to be missing.

4) With top posting, If people ever have to read up a message to work out 
what it's all about, at least they only have to do so once for a thread. 
From then on, they just read the top of every message.  With bottom posting, 
they have to read down every single message, and the messages just get 
longer and longer.

So in summary, this is all off topic, could someone please answer the 
question about Television 4/Channel 64 please.

Liron

"Barry OGrady"  wrote in message 
news:q01m87tdbeqrvl4eocsk8ervtkde80nmc9@4ax.com...

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 19:18:11 +1000, "Liron"
<nomail@sick.of.getting.spam> wrote:

>What channel is this exactly?  Is it a community TV station or commercial
>station and if so, which one?

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

>Liron
>
>"Barry OGrady"  wrote in message
>news:na9r77t7hiihqmo7su2u986d68dsc1fm1h@4ax.com...
>
>Television 4 is now on 64.
>It has no EPG and no subtitles.
> 

___
"Liron"  wrote in message 
news:ngEiq.3539$NR2.2267@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...

In answer to your URL, which was about posting at the bottom instead of the
top, the reasons why I top post rather than bottom post is:

1 I used to be a bottom poster too.  Then one day, everyone started top
posting, and although I resisted, I eventually saw the light.

2) The new material in a message is the most important part of the message,
and having it at the top means that people have quick access to the most
important information.  Having to scroll through hundreds of lines of
material they have probably read before or don't care about just to find a
line or two of new material is a waste of time, and having to do so again
and again for message after message after message is even more so.

3) The best way to understand a thread is to read through older messages.
Reading through older material in the current message doesn't usually work
because the material is usually incomplete, and the most important parts,
e.g. the original message, are the most likely parts to be missing.

4) With top posting, If people ever have to read up a message to work out
what it's all about, at least they only have to do so once for a thread.
From then on, they just read the top of every message.  With bottom posting,
they have to read down every single message, and the messages just get
longer and longer.

So in summary, this is all off topic, could someone please answer the
question about Television 4/Channel 64 please.

Liron

"Barry OGrady"  wrote in message
news:q01m87tdbeqrvl4eocsk8ervtkde80nmc9@4ax.com...

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 19:18:11 +1000, "Liron"
<nomail@sick.of.getting.spam> wrote:

>What channel is this exactly?  Is it a community TV station or commercial
>station and if so, which one?

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

>Liron
>
>"Barry OGrady"  wrote in message
>news:na9r77t7hiihqmo7su2u986d68dsc1fm1h@4ax.com...
>
>Television 4 is now on 64.
>It has no EPG and no subtitles.
>
___
HI.  I just looked through some posts and see the people are bottom posting 
a lot more than before.

The only problem is that I am using Windows Live Messenger, and it has lost 
the ability to indent quoted articles.

Liron

"Liron" <nomail@sick.of.getting.spam> writes:

>HI.  I just looked through some posts and see the people are bottom posting 
>a lot more than before.

You've got it wrong both ways. You're meant to edit the previos post for
brevity, removing all of the content you're not going to reply to, keeping only
what is necessary for clarity, and then intersperse your reply immediately
after the points that you're referring to, like I have here.

It makes it much easier for everyone else to follow. Top posting is bad because
it makes it impossible to follow the flow of a conversation, bottom posting is
bad because it makes it really annoying to hunt through endless amount of
repeated conversation, trying to find the tiny paragraph that someone might
have added to the bottom. In the end, I find it's easier to skip a badly
formatted post, because it just wastes too much time to read.

Basically, anything you do that makes it easier for someone to read your
reply will stop them ignoring it completely.

>So in summary, this is all off topic, could someone please answer the
>question about Television 4/Channel 64 please.

It's a datacasting channel. They're paying Prime for the bandwidth. The
content is the same waste-of-time infomercial rubbish that you see on all
commercial stations after midnight. I'd hate to think how bored anyone would
have to be to watch tripe like this.


-- 
World Wireless Prepaid Internet plans:    http://worldmobilenet.com/

Barry OGrady wrote...

> >We have limited bandwidth for digital television and they want to waste it on
> >shit like that...
> 
> It looks like they are just testing it ATM because there is nothing
> interesting.

Well, they must be doing a lot of testing, then. Cos it's still playing shit.

Liron wrote...

> In answer to your URL, which was about posting at the bottom instead of the 
> top, the reasons why I top post rather than bottom post is:
> 
> 1 I used to be a bottom poster too.  Then one day, everyone started top 
> posting, and although I resisted, I eventually saw the light.
> 
> 2) The new material in a message is the most important part of the message, 
> and having it at the top means that people have quick access to the most 
> important information.  Having to scroll through hundreds of lines of 
> material they have probably read before or don't care about just to find a 
> line or two of new material is a waste of time, and having to do so again 

And this is where the top posting issue is let down by people who are too
fucking lazy or ignorant to trim their replies to the text that they're actually
quoting.

And if you're doing this, then....

Paul Dwerryhouse wrote...

 
> Basically, anything you do that makes it easier for someone to read your
> reply will stop them ignoring it completely.

Yep. I tend to mark as read any post with one line replies to 100s of lines of
multi-quoted text.

And repeat offenders are usually put in the ignore list. After all if I'm going
to skip over their messages they might as well be in there. Saves me having to
download it in the first place.

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 23:04:10 +1100, Marts <marts@ymail.com> wrote:

>Barry OGrady wrote...
>
>> >We have limited bandwidth for digital television and they want to waste it on
>> >shit like that...
>> 
>> It looks like they are just testing it ATM because there is nothing
>> interesting.
>
>Well, they must be doing a lot of testing, then. Cos it's still playing shit.

I see that, and no sign of change.