Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I have one, have cable, but have short attention span... I mostly
    watch news or documentaries or music shows. Most dramas/ comedies
    are highly predictable, and as soon as they go to commercial, I 
    pick up something to read and forget about the show.
    
    I've thought about dumping it, but I kinda like the pretty colors
    it makes.....
    
    T.V. is best for breaking news, like the current Iraqi situation,
    when war might be any minute. CNN and C-Span, MacNeil-Lehrer.
    It is going to be a dramatic week, noters.
    
    -roger
    

    I would love to get rid of the TV. During college and graduate school I
    was among the <1% (of U.S. households) without a set. Nowadays I might
    as well not own one, so far as my own watching is concerned: it is
    monopolized by my three teenage step-daughters. None is a reader. None
    is an athlete. We only permit watching on weekends, and on weekends
    they (nearly) only interrupt their television to go to the movies.
    
    A year or so ago, I saw in the Wall Street Journal some figures from
    Nielsen the TV pollster: the average U.S. household has the television
    on 54 hours per week. I can't imagine that the television is actually
    WATCHED that much. It seems like a tremendous waste to me.
    
    - Hoyt

    Aversion to Sports: Yes.  Aversion to TV: No way!
    
    I watch between 14 to 16 hours of Tv a week.  Now before you telephobes
    go throwing stones, I say there is a huge difference between watching
    Tv selectively and simply sitting in front of the box, glassy-eyed and
    slack-jawed.  I use the Tv Guide the same way I use the card catalogue
    at the library.  I choose what I'm going to view several days in
    advance, turn on the set (or VCR) when the program starts and turn it
    off when its over.  The argument that "Tv is nothing but junk" is a
    lazy and narrow-minded asumption.  90% of most things (movies, albums,
    politicians, yes even books) are junk.  The best of television is equal
    the best of any other mass communication/information medium.  What
    constitutes that 10% is totally up to the viewer.
    
    LArry 

      I just got one for X-mas.  I mostly watch rented movies with it.
    
      I'm going to be getting cable so I can have the Disney Channel and
    the new forthcoming Sci-Fi channel.  I also like to have VH1 on the
    tube as a radio and background noise (as if my son isn't enough!).
    
    
                                      L.J.

    I don't own one either, haven't for about six years.  Wil

    Usually, the best news coverage is found in a good newspaper, but
    television has some other benefits in our global age. Sometimes a
    picture is truly worth a thousand words, and more. Right now we
    can see our troops in Saudi Arabia, and the terrain they are in,
    and can see the manauvers in prerparation for the terrifying war.
    We also see the streets of Bagdad, and here all the principal 
    players speak. We can see our senators and congressmen debating
    the war on the floor of Congress.
    
    Anyone with a satellite dish can pick up CNN, and does. Tariq Aziz
    the Iraqi foreign minister, said that he watches it to hear Bush's
    and Bakers statements. It turns it into instant diplomacy. Supposedly
    Hussein watches it, too.
    
    With the proliferation of home video cameras, everyone is a newsman;
    a video clip last night showed Soviet troops beating demonstraters in
    Vilnius, Lithuania, with their rifle butts. Pretty shocking stuff,
    but it gave the true atmosphere without interpetation of the writer.
    
    Even MacNeil_Lehrer can get exciting, when the major politicians and/or
    diplomats face off and argue with one another. It gievs one a very
    direct feeling of what these people are like.
    
    -roger
    
    
    
    

    PBS has a lot of good stuff.  Wagner's Ring, Mozart's opera, Civil War
    documentary to name a few.
    
    Eugene

    I think the same way as 0.  I don't seem to have time for TV.  If
    I'm home, I do listen to it at times or use it for background noise.
    The picture has been turning greener and greener for months now, but
    I don't care cuz I hardly ever look at it.  My favorite time to use
    the TV is between 6-8 when The Nashville Network has "Video PM."
    Country tunes are wonderful to work by!  So, I miss the news, I don't
    care...all this talk about war war war...it's too depressing.  
    
    ;)  kath

    Television is in all probability the most influential media since the
    invention of the printing press ... no denying it ...
    
    For the most part ... trash ... but ... there's NOVA, The Civil War
    Series, CNN, and, in my area a channel which carries only the old
    movies (pre 1960) ... and ... yes ... the NFL games ...
    
    Jerry

    I use my TV quite a bit.  I have quite a collection of movies, sports,
    and music on tape.  I also make my own films.  It's a great piece of
    entertainment.
    
    And I must have it to observe the normal, American family... The
    Simpsons!
    
    -db

    When I first got married (in 1979) we didn't own a TV, and there were
    so many other things we needed (like food) that we didn't get one right
    away. Well, right away stretched on and on and it was six years before
    we finally did get the 19" Sony we have had since. That six years was
    plenty of time to get out of the habit, and I rarely watch it today. I
    will occasionally watch sports or a special, but I find myself unable
    to bear what passes for network programming any more. The News is worse
    than the series.
    
    My wife watches it a few hours a week, and we rent a movie once in a
    while. But, honestly, what's the point?
    

>    With the proliferation of home video cameras, everyone is a newsman;
>    a video clip last night showed Soviet troops beating demonstraters in
>    Vilnius, Lithuania, with their rifle butts. Pretty shocking stuff,
>    but it gave the true atmosphere without interpetation of the writer.
    
Be careful, here.  You may not be getting an interpretation through a 
writer, but you are certainly getting an interpretation through both 
the cameraperson, the reporter who put the piece together, and the 
editor.  

If you've ever been part of an event that was covered by TV, check out 
how what you see on TV has a very different feel from what you 
experience when you are there, even when you pretty much agree with 
its conlusions.

							--Gerry

    I agree, Gerry; there is interpetation through the choice of shots
    etc. I've actually worked as a T.V. cameraman briefly, and I know
    much about the fine film art known as 'cheating a shot'; it is more
    direct in it's uncut form, however.
    
    -roger
    

    I certainly don't want to precipitate a tangent but .... today the
    stereotypical sales-three-hour-six-margarita lunch with my secretary
    lead to a discussion of the possible "hostilities" in the Gulf.

    There is no question but that at this time in history we are the most
    informed nation on the face of this earth.  We have *live* broadcast
    direct from the front ... we have seen the T72s and the M1A1 Abrams,
    the B52s, the soldiers faces, and heard their emotions ... we have
    seen, time after time, how the strategic strike will unfold and heard
    the military experts describe what the confrontation will probably be
    like.

    For the most part, if you listen carefully, you can find out how many
    men we have, and how many men they have, how many tanks we have, how
    many they have, how many aircraft - model - bomb load etc .. that we
    have and the opposing numbers ... I know more about our tactical and
    strategic strength, tactical orders or battle, enemy strength ... etc,
    than I EVER knew when I was carrying an M14 (the M16 was a piece of
    junk at that time) in Vietnam.

    There is but little question in most minds that we can bomb Iraq back
    to the stone ages ... Americans will probably die, BUT, we will
    prevail !

    To what do we owe this unparalleled wealth of knowledge?  Predominately
    television.

    Think for a moment it would be like if the same proportion of Iraq
    citizens had access to television in the same (relatively) unrestricted
    fashion that we do.  I would be willing to bet that this "tension"
    would have been over ... long ago.

    Irrespective ... TV does have it's "good" points ... no?

    Jerry

    Watching TV is no different than reading non-work-related NOTES! 
    Really.  With either, you're staring at a box.  And these conferences
    are not any different than watching one of the daily SOAPS on TV!

    Some folks have a huge addiction to NOTES.  Where one noter might call
    "Joe" a couch potato, that noter could be called the same!

    -db

    -1 db: I agree that Notes can be similarly addictive, but there's a
           difference in kind: television tends to disconnect the cerebrum,
           where notes ENGAGE the mind. IMO.
    
    The informational benefits of TV are staggering. If anything, in our
    society we're suffering from information overload. A few years ago I
    perceived a forest-for-trees problem: I was unable to see the big
    picture because these thousands of details got in the way. I started to
    read weekly news magazines instead of the daily paper... and eventually
    got to where the annual "Year in Review" issue was sufficient.
    
    It strikes me as highly plausible, the idea that Hussein could not
    exist if Iraqis had as good information as we Westerners do. Of course,
    Saddam knows that, too, and it will never happen. I wonder what the
    U.S. is broadcasting in Iraq these days. Is it a capital crime to watch
    or listen to Radio Free Desert?
    
    - Hoyt

    Someone in .5 mentioned a new forthcoming SCI-FI channel. If anyone
    knows something about that, can you post some details ? Sounds great !

    Re: .18
    
    Rather, you should send mail to the author, or ask in the TV conference.
    
    			Steve

    
    I don't have one.
    
    Having just moved, I chose to try living without it, and I may well
    never own one again. I'd always wanted to try being without T.V. -
    for the past few years I'd hardly watched the one I had anyway.
    
    'gail

    As stated earlier, I don't have one. Read on to see why:
    
    At 7:30 this morning I stopped at Sears Auto to get a quick oil
    change.  While waiting, I watched a TV in their waiting area.
    The morning "show" was full of stuff around the impending war
    in the Gulf.
    
    And there was Joe Garagiola, interviewing wive's and little
    children of men in the Gulf...  Here was a little four/five
    year old kid crying in his mother's arms with this network
    news camera stuck in his face, while he burrowed into his
    mother's bosom, trying to hide.
    
    That sucks.   There's a leech behind every network news 
    show looking for exactly that kind of exploitation,
    hiding behind their "human interest" label, and their "just
    reporting the news" badge.   And we're so manipulated by
    that bull, that we don't even think badly of a mother who
    lets that happen, or a kindergarten on an Army base that
    lets the TV crews come in and do that.  There isn't enough
    tragedy around, we're gonna offer up the feelings of little
    kids too.
    
    ^%$&^^%*^(&)**_(_(+_)+_)_*(^*^)^$%($_^Q^!+#&_@*^$_@*!
    
    Wil

    I'll give up my TV (especially CNN) when you pry my cold, dead fingers 
    from the remote control. To each his/her own, but *I* prefer to see
    and hear what's going on in the world in a timely fashion, not waiting
    to read the sweetened condensed version in tomorrow's newspaper.
    
    Long live CNN....
    Paul C.

re:  .17

>    -1 db: I agree that Notes can be similarly addictive, but there's a
>           difference in kind: television tends to disconnect the cerebrum,
>           where notes ENGAGE the mind. IMO.

Engage the mind!  hee hee
    

    we have a tv in our log-home in central Vermont.  
    
    but, there aren't any stations to watch!  
    
    generally i like that.  but, this weekend, i missed seeing the news. 
    however, i sure enjoyed the peace and quiet there!
    
    tony

    RE: TV in central VT: That's alright, if you had stations, you'd need
    electricity?  :-)  :-)
    
    ed

    fer whaddya want tv in vt anyhow?
    
    oops -- gotta run, Little Richard's on the tube, that show about the
    60's

    "Give me TV or give me death."  -- Patrich Hunry

    We threw out our TV when our children (then ages 6 and 8) became so
    addicted that school was suffering.   We abstained for 4 years, until
    it became apparent that the lack of the tube was causing some pain
    in actual school assignment completion for my oldest son.
    
    During that 4 years, my children became *avid* readers - and they still
    are, even though they watch TV now.
    
    What I find amusing in this note is that so many of you don't like the
    trash on TV - that's one of my primary reasons for watching... tune out
    the real world, blank my mind.  It's like going on a mental vacation.
    I am for keeping all the trash on TV - and, of course the propaganda
    they call news.
    
    -m

    Well, after all my ranting and raving about
    TV uselessness, and how I haven't had one for
    six years, I went out and bought one today,
    along with a VCR.
    
    Now I can watch tapes of Robert Bly, Joseph
    Campbell, some instructional tapes that I 
    have and can rent some wonderful old movies
    (Zorba the Greek, East of Eden, The Horse's
    Mouth, etc).
    
    I do not intend to sign up for cable, and
    I do not intend to watch the game this weekend.  8-)
    
    Wil
    

Re: .29

Game?  What game?

		Steve

    Re: last.
    
    What game?  What game!  Steve, it's only the SUPER BOWL!! -- the most
    important competitive event of the year.  In which sport I haven't the
    slightest idea ...
    
    LArry
    (at least the health clubs & supermarkets will be empty)
    
    
    

    
    
>>Game?  What game?
    
    My question exactly!
    
    	GJD

    RE.31
    Say's you. I plan to miss it and do something worthwhile SKI.
    
    -j

    Wow...
    
    I know it's been a while since the last response in here, but I
    thought I'd share my views now that the Gulf Crisis and the Superbowl
    are over and we can get back to the topic at hand:
    
    I find it quite interesting that those of you who seem to dislike
    it either don't watch it at all, or merely watch it for selected
    informational/news programs. Not for entertainment purposes, which
    is the same as listening to AM Radio, in my opinion...booorrrring.
    
    I never seem to have time for the tube anymore, but when I do, I
    love to watch all the entertainment programming I can (selective
    viewing, of course). I enjoy sci-fi, *good* comedy (which is a matter
    of taste, IMHO) or drama (ditto), and I have cable, but I really
    never catch any of the sports channels or the news channels (channel
    4 Boston news is just fine by me...don;t need much more than that).
    
    I don't really need to be reminded that the world has troubles out
    there...I don't need to hear the latest in Iraq, the Pamela Smart
    trial...etc. Somehow the word will get around where I work. Tell
    me something *entertaining* that was on tv that I may have missed
    or taped and have yet to watch, and then my ears will perk up. 
                                
    I don't "veg" in front of the thing...I go through the guide and
    select the type of programming which will entertain me the most.
    I also am involved in music and the arts myself, which merely enhances
    my interest in *being* entertained while not entertaining others
    myself. Hey, the informational value of television is amazing in
    a technological sense...but tv is also a "reflection of our lives
    and ourselves" to paraphrase Walter Cronkite. 
    
    However, just let me say that I commend those who have responed
    to this topic who show good *parental* judgement in what or how
    they let their kids watch. No, I wouldn't want my kids to watch
    half the stuff that's shown on MTV or the like, but if *I* want to
    blow a few brain cells on it once in awhile, hey...that's entertainment
    (especially if it's Paula Abdul...yum yum...) and that's freedom
    of choice. 
    

    I recently saw a chart depiciting the average number of hours that the
    TV is on in American households, according to Nielsen. In the sixties it
    was 5 hours/day; 6 hours/day in the seventies, and now it's up to 7.
    
    In Brave New World, it was soma. TV is our drug.
    
    Re -1: I like your view that good TV entertainment is a worthwhile
           use of time. My problem is discriminating: once encouched, it's
           hard to turn the beast off. Your selectivity is admirable.

    Speaking of TV ... did anyone see "Herman's Head" last night?
    
    I accidentally stumbled onto it but ... well .. I haven't laughed that
    much in a long long time - it was a show about sexual harassment.
    
    Bubba

    Damn ... I missed it last night.
    
    Herman's Head is one of the better shows on TV these days.
    
    I bet you can guess which one of the 4 I identify with ...  ;')

>>     <<< Note 550.37 by HDLITE::ZARLENGA "Michael Zarlenga, Alpha P/PEG" >>>
    
>>    I bet you can guess which one of the 4 I identify with ...  ;')


	I've never seen it.  Is there one who's really obnoxious and
	hates women?

    re .36, what was so funny about it?
    
    Or is it just the idea of women being sexually harassed, in general,
    that you find so amusing?  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .39
    
    Ever seen "In Living Color"?  It was along those lines ... no reverence
    (whatsoever) with respect to the politically correct attitudes of today.
    
    Bubba

.38>                  <<< Note 550.38 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS >>>
.38>
.38> Is there one who's really obnoxious and hates women?
    
    But I like women.  Maybe even more than you do.

    i like TV, i watch it when i eat my sandwich, and before i sleep.
    i used not to watch TV for years, never had one, used to make me
    nervous to watch it, but now i got used to it. i dont watch sports
    really, but i watch discovery channel and documentary stuff and simposon's 
    and the 3 stooges and bugs bunny.

    /nasser

>    
>    Or is it just the idea of women being sexually harassed, in general,
>    that you find so amusing?  :-)

Who said it was women being sexually harassed? :-)

Most of the show did NOT deal with sxual harrassment of anybody.  Basically,
Herman gets the chance to hire a 'temp' to help reduce the department's
workload.  He interviews a number of people, and then selects one woman.
That woman is there approximately 3 days when Herman decides he has to fire
her for not being able to handle the job.  He starts to talk to her about it,
she says she knows what he wants to say but she does not think dating him would
be a good idea.  Herman then tells her he is not asking her for a date, but 
to fire her.  She immediately claims harrassment and a hearing is held.  At that
time, the people sitting in judgement of Herman (3 of them) are all set to find
Herman guilty of harrassement.  Herman gets up and asks the 'victim' a few
questions (like:
	1) in the 3 days she was there, how many articles did she process
           answer = 0
	2) how much <some other job requirement> did she do
	   answer = 0
	3) how many fires did she set
	   answer = 3 (changed to 2 after Herman said he only knew about 2).

Basically, the person as NOT doing the job and Herman fired her.  She had the
impression it was because she refused to go out with Herman (incidentally,
Herman never asked her out).  After the questions, she said that yes indeed
she had been mistaken and 'dropped' the charges.  Happy ending?

Well, it seems two (male) of the three people sitting in judgement WERE making
comments about the 3rd (female).  After the hearing, she told those two that
she was going to get a lawyer and sue them for harrassment [There was actually
no mistaking it on anyone's part this time].  On the way out, one of the males
made a comment about Herman's buns.  So, perhaps he was harrassed as well?

Anyway, out of the show time, about 1 minute dealt with the female telling the
two males about the upcoming lawsuit, about 3 minutes dealt with the 'trial',
another 2 minutes where Herman fired the woman.  The rest was just a normal
Herman show.  


It is intersting to note that one of the interviewees was a beautiful woman
that did not have ANY of the job qualifications; Herman did not choose her
but rather someone with the qualifications.

    
>>    But I like women.  Maybe even more than you do.

	Oh yes, I'm sure you do in some ways, Mike.  I'm sure
	many have succumbed to the Zarlenga charm over the years, too.

	8^)
	Diane

.44>	many have succumbed to the Zarlenga charm over the years, too.
    
    Succumbed?  Please, this is a family conference.
    
    Besides, I hardly have enough class to be charming.

    
 >>   Besides, I hardly have enough class to be charming.

	Well, self-deprecation can be charming.  It's a start.

    I'm not clever enough to be self-deprecating enough to be charming.

>>    I'm not clever enough to be self-deprecating enough to be charming.

	Oh, this is balderdash.  In fact, I have removed the word
	"clever" from my vocabulary and replaced it with "zarlengoid".

	Di

    re .47, .48, really, with those SAT scores I, personally, doubt there's
    anything he couldn't do.  
    
    Lorna
    

 Ooh, er... sorry, wrong conference. :-)

    re:.48
    
    If I didn't know better, I'd think you were flirting with me.

    
>>    If I didn't know better, I'd think you were flirting with me.

	Keep 'em guessin', I always say.