Food Network?

Re: 123daff7-792a-4d1d-b513-6d8fa7b0e301@f31g2000pri.googlegroups.com

Bryan wrote:


Well said. The tea party is about pandering to people's basest bad instincts
and getting them to vote against their own best interests. Reference the
little story that was posted here earlier about the tea partier, the union
activist, and the CEO. That is the mechanism by which this shit happens
because people are easily frightened and these days all it takes is a short
soundbite, and rich content and reasoning based on facts and evidence has
all but vanished from the average voter's lexicon.
 
On 06/03/2011 5:08 PM, Portland wrote:



It doesn't really matter to me whether or no they are pros so long as
they can cook and teach something to the viewers. I am not at all
interested in any sort of cooking reality show or contests. Shows like
Iron Chef, and Chopped have nothing that interests me. Wrapped....>???
How they make junk foods? Get rid of it. Diners Drive Ins and Dives?
Can't understand why we would be interested in learning how greasy
spoons make massive quantities of greasy food.
 
On 7 Mar 2011 14:36:07 GMT, notbob wrote:


That seems awfully cheap... at those prices I can't imagine they'd
send a tech out to wire your house... probably DIY... can't even buy
decent rabbit ears for $12. LOL
 
On Mar 9, 9:29?am, Brooklyn1 wrote:

If you can scan your cookbooks and get them into PDF format, you
can use them on other e-readers.

Cindy Hamilton
 
sf wrote:

When I tried SD and HD side by side I saw the difference clearly.
Caring about the difference is another matter. I've been to movies in
IMAX, on big screens, in small cinemas. I've seen the same movies on TV
in SD and HD. I've concluded that if I really care about the size of
the screen and the resolution I'll go to the cinema to see it. For
nearly everything I've seen at home I just don't care about that level
of detail. I see the difference I just don't care about the difference.
 
sf wrote:

Absolutely. That's the *point*. If a criminal knows there's a good
chance some random civilian is packing then that criminal switches to
work that's less dangerous*. The murder rates fall as a natural
consequence. The more law abiding citizens who go about armed the
better. People who think law abiding citizens randomly shoot people
have no concept of what actually happens when law abiding citizens go
armed.

At some point the murder rate goes from criminals to lunatics.
Criminals are detered by well armed law abiding citizens. Lunatics are
not sane enough for that to work. There's a reason gun permits are
denied to established lunatics but the ways to find out someone is a
lunatic include going violent the first time.

* What happened in Miami in the mid-1990s is instructive. The murder
rate skyrocketed as drug traffic increased. Florida switched from a
"may issue" state to a "shall issue" state and thousands of locals got
permits. Suddenly the chance of a criminal's victim packing when way
up. Well armed law abiding citizens make for extremely dangerous crime
victims even though they pose zero danger to other law abiding citizens.
Many of the criminals switched to attacking tourists. Extremely few
tourists are well armed. The safety of the locals increased
significantly as the number of well armed law abiding citizens increased.
 
On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 10:40:36 -0800, "Paul M. Cook"
wrote:


I was going to mention it by name, but decided to go generic because
that's what that type of show is for me.... a channel flipper.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:36:34 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
wrote:


Use a handicap sticker... by law they are required to provide adequate
handicap spaces. If they expanded why would they have less
spaces?!?!?, to me expansion means more. And I don't think a public
library can charge for parking.
 
On 2011-03-07, Brooklyn1 wrote:



This was in SFBA which has been heavily wired and crosswired for
decades. Satellite TV (STV) doesn't really stand a chance, there.
Here, the prices are prohibitively higher for both cable and STV. Mom was getting STV equiv
of what I had on cable and she was paying more like $100
per mo. Not sure what cable costs in nearest town (8 mi). We don't get
cable. I jes know I won't be paying $100 mo for tv for any reason,
from anyone, any time soon. Specially when all cable/sat tv is now
33% commercials. Screw that.

Remember the big lie? "Would you pay for commercial-free TV?" Whatta
crock!

nb
 
On 2011-03-10, Doug Freyburger wrote:


LOL.....

There's such a thing as too big. I saw 2nd LOTR at an IMAX. Like one
wag commented, "you could tell the characters only by counting the
number of pores on their nose".

nb
 
On 07/03/2011 1:30 PM, Pete C. wrote:


I don't listen to the radio to hear commercials. I will tolerate a
limited number of short commercials. I don't really care what they are
for, provided they are not loud and/or offensive.




I don't understand that business at all. There was a controversy here
about satellite and cable companies carrying a networks signal. The
network wanted to be paid by the carriers. I guess their argument is
that the cable/satellite company is making a buck off their product so
they should get a cut.
The way I figure it is that the network has it backwards. They make
their money from advertising, and the more viewers there are, the more
their spots are worth. The signal carriers are doing them a favour by
making their programing available to more people. To the best of my
knowledge, the cable and satellite have to carry the local programming.
If the carriers had the option of not carrying the networks station,
then only people using an antennae would see their programs and the ads
that are paying the bills. The people on cable and satellite would not
be seeing anything from that network. No ads.... no income.

AFAIAC, if anyone should be paying it should be the networks paying the
cable and satellite companies to carry their signal. This is television,
and the product it he viewers.
 
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:31:27 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Yes, I have an HGTV and I don't think it's a dramatic difference.
Hubby thinks I'm crazy, but unless it's a really fuzzy copy of
whatever show it is, I don't see a big enough difference to get
enthusiastic about HGTV. However, I emphatically *hate* the crappy
pixelation that happens all too often. HGTV has NOT been an
improvement, AFAIC. It doesn't matter to me if I watch a show over
1-99 or in the 700s, they simply are not different enough to matter.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:15:43 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:


The signal bounces between the hills here.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On 7 Mar 2011 18:52:36 GMT, notbob wrote:

You had a clear shot at the signal. I got Sacramento, plus all the SF
and Oakland channels when I lived on Bay St. It's not the same here.


--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:50:53 -0800, sf wrote:


No. I had never had one until my son gave me this one this Christmas.
I assume it is the newest version. Since it is in the cover I can't
see any model numbers. I didn't ask him how much he paid for it. I
am sure that Amazon knows exactly what I have bought from them for the
Kindle. They can certainly tell me when I start to place a order for
a regular book that I bought that title last year.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)
 
Back
Top