Posted by nickbracco on 8/23/2011 7:03:00 PM (view original):
Speaking about being blocked.....do you know that Mike has been blocked by more of us then swamp has? All those words of wisdom gone to waste!

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/23/2011 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crazystengel on 8/23/2011 1:34:00 PM (view original):
So I said I read one article and was good on that topic, forever?

Do you think misrepresenting people's words in a crude and obvious way fools anyone? 

I've read about the Tea Party in plenty of places (New Yorker, NYT, Guardian, Harper's, Atlantic, blogs, etc.).  But somehow to you, saying that one of the articles I read is better than anything cable news has to offer means that's the only thing I've ever read on the Tea Party.

You can do better than that, Mike.

It's fairly obvious that you don't pay attention.   TV brings the topic to one's attention.   You can then look more into the topic or ignore it.   15 seconds of evil TV is better than reading an article only to realize you just don't care about the topic.

You guys seem to think that you must choose TV or the printed word.  You don't.   One of my favorite segments at this time is The Five(on the hated FOX network).  Why?  Because they cover the day's topics and there are 5 people supposedly giving varied opinions.  After about 10 seconds on any topic, I can decide to keep listening, turn away or go find more information on said topic.   With a magazine or newspaper, it takes me 10 seconds to pick it up and open it up.   ONE PAGE.

Maybe I have more time because I don't have the need to feel all superior by saying "I don't watch TV news. It's rubbish" while choosing to spend hours looking at a dozen newspapers to find a topic I care about.

Posted by The Taint on 8/23/2011 10:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/23/2011 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crazystengel on 8/23/2011 1:34:00 PM (view original):
So I said I read one article and was good on that topic, forever?

Do you think misrepresenting people's words in a crude and obvious way fools anyone? 

I've read about the Tea Party in plenty of places (New Yorker, NYT, Guardian, Harper's, Atlantic, blogs, etc.).  But somehow to you, saying that one of the articles I read is better than anything cable news has to offer means that's the only thing I've ever read on the Tea Party.

You can do better than that, Mike.

It's fairly obvious that you don't pay attention.   TV brings the topic to one's attention.   You can then look more into the topic or ignore it.   15 seconds of evil TV is better than reading an article only to realize you just don't care about the topic.

You guys seem to think that you must choose TV or the printed word.  You don't.   One of my favorite segments at this time is The Five(on the hated FOX network).  Why?  Because they cover the day's topics and there are 5 people supposedly giving varied opinions.  After about 10 seconds on any topic, I can decide to keep listening, turn away or go find more information on said topic.   With a magazine or newspaper, it takes me 10 seconds to pick it up and open it up.   ONE PAGE.

Maybe I have more time because I don't have the need to feel all superior by saying "I don't watch TV news. It's rubbish" while choosing to spend hours looking at a dozen newspapers to find a topic I care about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.cbo.gov/

http://english.aljazeera.net/

http://www.time.com/time/

http://www.rollingstone.com/


Its pretty easy to read a whole lot of stuff in a pretty short amount of time.  TV can't come close to highlighting as many topics as online media can.  Much of the content comes with accompanying video to watch if you choose.  Primetime cable news is a joke.  I came to that conclusion after the last presidential election. 

Hell if you want to watch the five, http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/index.html and you can watch it when you want to watch it.  You can watch whoever you want, whenever you want to: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/#s=a-d

TV news is a dinosaur.

Posted by nickbracco on 8/23/2011 7:00:00 PM (view original):
The thing is, if all of us who have been blocked by Mike got together and started our own thread he would not know when we were talking about him.

Posted by The Taint on 8/23/2011 10:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/23/2011 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crazystengel on 8/23/2011 1:34:00 PM (view original):
So I said I read one article and was good on that topic, forever?

Do you think misrepresenting people's words in a crude and obvious way fools anyone? 

I've read about the Tea Party in plenty of places (New Yorker, NYT, Guardian, Harper's, Atlantic, blogs, etc.).  But somehow to you, saying that one of the articles I read is better than anything cable news has to offer means that's the only thing I've ever read on the Tea Party.

You can do better than that, Mike.

It's fairly obvious that you don't pay attention.   TV brings the topic to one's attention.   You can then look more into the topic or ignore it.   15 seconds of evil TV is better than reading an article only to realize you just don't care about the topic.

You guys seem to think that you must choose TV or the printed word.  You don't.   One of my favorite segments at this time is The Five(on the hated FOX network).  Why?  Because they cover the day's topics and there are 5 people supposedly giving varied opinions.  After about 10 seconds on any topic, I can decide to keep listening, turn away or go find more information on said topic.   With a magazine or newspaper, it takes me 10 seconds to pick it up and open it up.   ONE PAGE.

Maybe I have more time because I don't have the need to feel all superior by saying "I don't watch TV news. It's rubbish" while choosing to spend hours looking at a dozen newspapers to find a topic I care about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.cbo.gov/

http://english.aljazeera.net/

http://www.time.com/time/

http://www.rollingstone.com/


Its pretty easy to read a whole lot of stuff in a pretty short amount of time.  TV can't come close to highlighting as many topics as online media can.  Much of the content comes with accompanying video to watch if you choose.  Primetime cable news is a joke.  I came to that conclusion after the last presidential election. 

Hell if you want to watch the five, http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/index.html and you can watch it when you want to watch it.  You can watch whoever you want, whenever you want to: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/#s=a-d

TV news is a dinosaur.

It's almost as if you didn't bother to read the post you responded to. 

As for watching The Five, it's not as if I rush to a TV to see it.  If I'm around, it's on and I'm interested in maybe catching some news I missed, I turn it on. 

As I pointed out before, the TV can be on and I can do something else.   Background noise that might catch my attention.  If I scanning the internet for news, I'm scanning the internet for news.  I'm not doing anything else. 

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/25/2011 3:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 8/23/2011 10:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/23/2011 2:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by crazystengel on 8/23/2011 1:34:00 PM (view original):
So I said I read one article and was good on that topic, forever?

Do you think misrepresenting people's words in a crude and obvious way fools anyone? 

I've read about the Tea Party in plenty of places (New Yorker, NYT, Guardian, Harper's, Atlantic, blogs, etc.).  But somehow to you, saying that one of the articles I read is better than anything cable news has to offer means that's the only thing I've ever read on the Tea Party.

You can do better than that, Mike.

It's fairly obvious that you don't pay attention.   TV brings the topic to one's attention.   You can then look more into the topic or ignore it.   15 seconds of evil TV is better than reading an article only to realize you just don't care about the topic.

You guys seem to think that you must choose TV or the printed word.  You don't.   One of my favorite segments at this time is The Five(on the hated FOX network).  Why?  Because they cover the day's topics and there are 5 people supposedly giving varied opinions.  After about 10 seconds on any topic, I can decide to keep listening, turn away or go find more information on said topic.   With a magazine or newspaper, it takes me 10 seconds to pick it up and open it up.   ONE PAGE.

Maybe I have more time because I don't have the need to feel all superior by saying "I don't watch TV news. It's rubbish" while choosing to spend hours looking at a dozen newspapers to find a topic I care about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.cbo.gov/

http://english.aljazeera.net/

http://www.time.com/time/

http://www.rollingstone.com/


Its pretty easy to read a whole lot of stuff in a pretty short amount of time.  TV can't come close to highlighting as many topics as online media can.  Much of the content comes with accompanying video to watch if you choose.  Primetime cable news is a joke.  I came to that conclusion after the last presidential election. 

Hell if you want to watch the five, http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/index.html and you can watch it when you want to watch it.  You can watch whoever you want, whenever you want to: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/#s=a-d

TV news is a dinosaur.

TV has the advantage of presenting the most important stuff to people who dont know what is happening.

I admit online is making TV less of an advantage,

But TV and online together make Newspapers a dinosaur fossil!

Heh, I read while I talk, swim, take a bath, sit on the toilet, walk the dog,  listen to sporting events.  Hell I read magazines in the shower and I read while watching TV. Perhaps I'm just a bit more mentally capable than you or something.  It's certainly not that difficult.  Modern day electronics have made it very simple.