Dear Nab, Directv and The Florda District Court

Status
Please reply by conversation.
....If he was joking, I think a mod would have deleted the original post

Well, a couple of people in whom I have confidence have said that Goalie Bob is indeed a service member and in Iraq. Therefore I wish to apologize to Goalie Bob for suggesting he might be a fraud. However, a few comments are in order and I hope that interested parties would read them carefully:

1. Deleting my post is childish. I doubt that Goalie Bob is that fragile and I am sure he is able to stick up for himself.

2. On boards like this, anybody can claim to be anybody. I rather doubt that there are many personal interactions relative to the number of posters and messages. Therefore I look to the post to see if it has the ring of truth. His has indicia that indicate a fake. These could also be caused by being rushed or reacting emotionally but they are there.

3. My interpretation was that he is talking about receiving DBS in Iraq (“how much more distant can you get?)”. I didn’t know that was even technically and legally possible. He says “I have tryed [sic] Satellite....” Well, what are E* and D*?

4. Notwithstanding all of this, his status in the military does not give him any special knowledge or authority regarding DNS. I don’t accept when people play the “Murtha Card.” I have several years of military service. Does this mean that my opinion is more important that that of someone who got out after his first enlistment? That Hillary Clinton should just shut up? I think not.

5. Goalie Bob wanted to go on a anti-Rupert rant and that is fine. Except that he has his fact wrongs (e.g. regarding the “settlement” and “ethnic” programming) and makes the same silly comparison with buying a newspaper that has been tried and debunked a dozen times.

6. More worrisome is his descent into a left wing diatribe. Dissolve the NAB? It’s a private organization. Where the hell does the government get off dissolving a private organization? Iceberg and the gang would raise unshirted hell if the government decided to “dissolve” satelliteguys.com. Retirement = Social Security? No doubt GB will turn down any military pension and live on that. Healthcare for all? (read: government controlled health care) Does Goalie Bob think this is what the military fights for?

7. He negligently slams the Commander in Chief, who has nothing to do with any of these issues. He suggest bribery (the judge?) with no evidence. He throws around the term “monopoly” without any understanding of what that means.

8. Perhaps GB is just having a bad day. I’m all for cutting military members some slack but just because you wear the uniform does not make you right, informed or clear thinking. Nor does it entitle you to free satellite TV from a private entity. If you enter the fray of ideas, you must be prepared to be challenged. There are any number of professions (nurses, teachers, fire fighters) that we could declare “off limits” to criticism. Is that the type of society you want?

9. I will be anxious to see his congressional campaign get underway. If military experience is the big criterion, perhaps we can declare John McCain emperor and be done with it. If he wants to make “putting a boot up NAB’s ass” the keystone of his candidacy, I think he’s going to be in trouble.

10. I understand personal friends of GB rising to his defense but I have contempt for those posters who jumped on the bandwagon of “defending a soldier” just to make themselves feel important.

In summary, I did not attack a military member. I challenged a person whom I (reasonably so) thought to be impersonating a military member.
 
1. Deleting my post is childish. I doubt that Goalie Bob is that fragile and I am sure he is able to stick up for himself.
the post was an attack at Bob. Therefore it got deleted.

2. On boards like this, anybody can claim to be anybody. I rather doubt that there are many personal interactions relative to the number of posters and messages. Therefore I look to the post to see if it has the ring of truth. His has indicia that indicate a fake. These could also be caused by being rushed or reacting emotionally but they are there.
With GoalieBob as a mod, most people here know who he is. But again, the signature kinda gives it away

3. My interpretation was that he is talking about receiving DBS in Iraq (“how much more distant can you get?)”. I didn’t know that was even technically and legally possible. He says “I have tryed [sic] Satellite....” Well, what are E* and D*?
slingbox
 
ThomasRz said:
8. Perhaps GB is just having a bad day. I’m all for cutting military members some slack but just because you wear the uniform does not make you right, informed or clear thinking. Nor does it entitle you to free satellite TV from a private entity. If you enter the fray of ideas, you must be prepared to be challenged. There are any number of professions (nurses, teachers, fire fighters) that we could declare “off limits” to criticism. Is that the type of society you want?
goailbob did time in Iraq and got called back from inactive reserve, pulled away from his family (as were all of his buddys I met) he is working 12-18 hour days with no days off, so cut this man some slack...and Btw Bob is very articulate and intellegent...
 
the post was an attack at Bob. Therefore it got deleted.

Ok. Fine.

With GoalieBob as a mod, most people here know who he is. But again, the signature kinda gives it away

Being a mod is not proof of anything else. I doubt that "most" people know whether or not any poster's (even a mod) claims are true. It is only the recounting of face to face interactions that convinced me and less than a handful of people did so.

slingbox

This should enable him to receive what he wants. Does he not have a friend, relative, neighbor who has network television? What about all his acquaintances here?


it is finished
 
I am going to do this, because I want you to see the hypocrisy. And I don't mean to offend anyone.

goaliebob99 is over in Iraq. It was his admirable choice to join the service, which is nothing to be taken lightly. I wish him a safe return to his family. I read this one sentence, though, and wondered...
goaliebob99 said:
Dissolve the NAB (I hope your listening congress and FCC) Create a bill of rights for satellite and cable customers so we can watch programming from anywhere we so desire.
For someone that is fighting for freedoms, including the freedom of choice, it was very quick to pull out the card to pass a law which limits someone else's freedom of choice.
 
For someone that is fighting for freedoms, including the freedom of choice, it was very quick to pull out the card to pass a law which limits someone else's freedom of choice.

No limits, just puts them on par with most other companies, they're free to compete for viewers by providing a superior product or go out of business. Times change, the affiliates antiquated 1950's business model, that they are so desperate to preserve, does not serve the publics interest anymore.


NightRyder
 
Bimson,
Huh ??? Are you speaking about the freedoms of the NAB to force viewers to watch what they want the viewer to see, the freedom of the NAB to dictate programming. Yeah, thats just the kind of freedom we need. How about the freedom of all affiliates to compete for eyeballs which will cause these affiliates to put up or shut up. You'll either have a quality, state of the art broadcast and transmission facilities or end up on the trash heap of old worn out VHF antenna's.
 
No limits, just puts them on par with most other companies, they're free to compete for viewers by providing a superior product or go out of business. Times change, the affiliates antiquated 1950's business model, that they are so desperate to preserve, does not serve the publics interest anymore.


NightRyder
Very good point and well said.
 
I am going to do this, because I want you to see the hypocrisy. And I don't mean to offend anyone.

goaliebob99 is over in Iraq. It was his admirable choice to join the service, which is nothing to be taken lightly. I wish him a safe return to his family. I read this one sentence, though, and wondered...For someone that is fighting for freedoms, including the freedom of choice, it was very quick to pull out the card to pass a law which limits someone else's freedom of choice.

Greg, I usually agree with you but I doubt that Bob is being hypocritical so much as maybe a bit ideological.

Many of us (especially when we're younger) don't always see far enough beyond the scope of defending our own rights to the possible infringements of similar rights of someone else. Sometimes we DO see far enough and just don't agree with the other's rights. I do that all the time but I don't think that's the case here with Bob.
 
Courageous move Greg, but I advise you to back away slowly from this thread and not to return. You will just be savaged and those who attack you will not be persuaded. There are dimwits that simply don't understand the concepts and some of them have no problem using goaliebob99 as a human shield for their ignorance. This is the "Michael J. Fox defense." I am now running for cover. Incoming!


I am going to do this, because I want you to see the hypocrisy. And I don't mean to offend anyone.

goaliebob99 is over in Iraq. It was his admirable choice to join the service, which is nothing to be taken lightly. I wish him a safe return to his family. I read this one sentence, though, and wondered...For someone that is fighting for freedoms, including the freedom of choice, it was very quick to pull out the card to pass a law which limits someone else's freedom of choice.
 
I'm going to crawl out of the foxhole just briefly. I think what GB was saying is that there is freedom of association in this country. NAB in serving its members is no different than NOW, AFL-CIO, Chamber of Commerce, CATA, and myriad other trade or political associations. Goaliebob99, perhaps in a fit of anger, suggested that the government dissolve them. If you cannot see what is wrong with this proposal, there is no point in further discussion.

Mr. Minnow - just exactly what type of system do you have in mind? The majority of a network station's programming is the same as another station of the same network. The affiliate receives programming from the corporation who have negotiated with the producers of said programming. This is why we use the term "network." Let us assume that NYC has the best local affiliates - production values, picture quality, the hottest babe doing the weather, etc. Now we say any station to anybody anywhere. What happens? Everybody migrates to viewing NYC. All the other affiliates go out of business. No more local weather, no more local sports, no more local interest stories, no more local news. Now afficianados like yourself who disdain these country bumpkin stations won't care but the impact on local communities would be great. You see, the provision of television services from the beginning has not been simply about producing the slickest, most (superficially) attractive product - it is also about public service. The broadcast spectrum is limited and therefore heavily regulated. It is not like choosing McD vs BK vs Wendy's for lunch. But apparently you see TV only as another good to be consumed for your pleasure and all other considerations be damned. I trust that some day you and those who think like you will mature to the point where you realize that the world is not all about what you want. Crawling back to safety...


Bimson,
Huh ??? Are you speaking about the freedoms of the NAB to force viewers to watch what they want the viewer to see, the freedom of the NAB to dictate programming. Yeah, thats just the kind of freedom we need. How about the freedom of all affiliates to compete for eyeballs which will cause these affiliates to put up or shut up. You'll either have a quality, state of the art broadcast and transmission facilities or end up on the trash heap of old worn out VHF antenna's.
 
Greg and Thomas in bed together? Stay tuned more to come. :rolleyes:
I'm like waltinvt, Greg but that's usually and not all the time.

I agree this is about competition or in this case the lack of. It is time to put up or shut up with these broadcasters, either offer a product for viewers or die a slow death. If they are not getting the advertising revenue they would like to have, instead of punishing the viewers with ridiculous fees then maybe they need to look at themselves and figure out what's wrong and take the steps needed to build that base back. This isn't a "cable thing" or a "satellite thing", this is about our freedom to choose our sources of someones right to exercise freedom of speech and if we care to hear/watch it or not. Yea, cable companies are being targeted right now because of how contracts are expiring, satellite will have some expire over the next few years and then everyone will be up in arms then. We all need to pull together to fight for our choice, not Murdoch's choice, not the NAB but mine. My choice matters at the end of the day.
 
ThomasRz said:
Courageous move Greg, but I advise you to back away slowly from this thread and not to return. You will just be savaged and those who attack you will not be persuaded.
You may have seen that I don't particularly care if I am savaged or not. However, thanks for the warning.
NightRyder said:
No limits, just puts them on par with most other companies, they're free to compete for viewers by providing a superior product or go out of business. Times change, the affiliates antiquated 1950's business model, that they are so desperate to preserve, does not serve the publics interest anymore.
But you still do not understand. The "publics interest" is defined by the FCC as localism. A network was built despite localism.

On par with other companies? How many Domino's, Pizza Hut's and Papa John's deliver product to you? Who manufactures the Coke or Pepsi you drink? Why can't you buy any of those in 9-packs?

Businesses sell their product as they see fit. It is their freedom of choice; the one goaliebob99 is so desperately protecting.
minnow said:
Huh ??? Are you speaking about the freedoms of the NAB to force viewers to watch what they want the viewer to see, the freedom of the NAB to dictate programming. Yeah, thats just the kind of freedom we need.
Like I said, it may not be the kind of freedom of choice you wish to see, but that is exactly the freedom of choice that the networks have chosen.

What I fail to understand is that if no one likes how the networks are operating their freedom to exclusively allow affiliates territorial franchises, why people are still watching the networks? If you don't like how ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX are running things, why can't you stop watching?
 
The mistake here being made is not understanding the freedom of choice. If you do not like the choices in the game, stop playing the game. If you do not like the choices that ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC have made, why would anyone still complain when they can simply turn off the TV?

Or is it that anyone cannot shy away from network TV as we know it?
 
The mistake here being made is not understanding the freedom of choice. If you do not like the choices in the game, stop playing the game. If you do not like the choices that ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC have made, why would anyone still complain when they can simply turn off the TV?

Or is it that anyone cannot shy away from network TV as we know it?
I guess it is the same as you not being able to shy away from this forum.
 
Well afer reading through this thread I could type all night but I'm going to keep it short. Thomas implied that Bob was having a bad day when he posted this topic, well, with that being said and if you really were having a bad day. I'm really looking forward to one of your good days Bob because it will be a best seller!

As I have already told you in the past Bob, Thank you for your service and thank all of you other members who have and still serve this great Nation.

Bob, when you return safely to Fort Gordon, give me a shout. I would love to buy you a beer, or two or three..............
 
Maybe we need two separate threads: one, for those persistent nay-sayers who feel compelled to argue over and over and over again the same points and the other for the those the see cup as half full. Because it's really getting old.
Possibly the nay-sayers will be proved right again but at this point, who cares.
Ad-nauseum.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)