I wonder why?

"Meldon"  wrote in message 
news:13qj6j3n5k8ttf5@corp.supernews.com...
>I wonder why?

same reason 99.9999% of posts here are crap... you have to dig to find the 
pearls...

"klunk"  wrote in message 
news:4bsqj.258$FA.227@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Meldon"  wrote in message 
> news:13qj6j3n5k8ttf5@corp.supernews.com...
>>I wonder why?
>
> same reason 99.9999% of posts here are crap... you have to dig to find the 
> pearls...
>

Digging may be required to find the pearls, but surely you're not suggesting 
it is the reason. If you are, please expand on the concept.

"Meldon"  wrote in message 
news:13qlg9f2cs5h7c6@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "klunk"  wrote in message 
> news:4bsqj.258$FA.227@pd7urf2no...
>>
>> "Meldon"  wrote in message 
>> news:13qj6j3n5k8ttf5@corp.supernews.com...
>>>I wonder why?
>>
>> same reason 99.9999% of posts here are crap... you have to dig to find 
>> the pearls...
>>
>
> Digging may be required to find the pearls, but surely you're not 
> suggesting it is the reason. If you are, please expand on the concept.


digging is not a reason but a result of a desire to find "greater reward for 
one's effort"...

the simple fact that a majority of what you encounter is crap is because it 
simply is... the best of any area of human endeavour is always limited to a 
small percentage... that's why competition was invented...

as far as tv or any other form of entertainment media is concerned... it's 
no different... network executives... (and most people in general) are 
motivated by money, not quality... it doesn't matter to the bean counters if 
something is critically acclaimed... nor does it really matter to most 
people... particularly those who waste their time and their minds on crap 
like gameshows...

most everything is crap because most people prefer crap...

On Feb 6, 3:35 am, "Meldon"  wrote:
> I wonder why?

It is the 'sacred' duty of the Jew media to "dumb down" citizens, so
they will not ask any questions about wars for israHELL, etc...

Mirelle

On Feb 7, 3:00 pm, "klunk"  wrote:
> "Meldon"  wrote in message
>
> news:13qlg9f2cs5h7c6@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > "klunk"  wrote in message
> >news:4bsqj.258$FA.227@pd7urf2no...
>
> >> "Meldon"  wrote in message
> >>news:13qj6j3n5k8ttf5@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>I wonder why?
>
> >> same reason 99.9999% of posts here are crap... you have to dig to find
> >> the pearls...
>
> > Digging may be required to find the pearls, but surely you're not
> > suggesting it is the reason. If you are, please expand on the concept.
>
> digging is not a reason but a result of a desire to find "greater reward for
> one's effort"...
>
> the simple fact that a majority of what you encounter is crap is because it
> simply is... the best of any area of human endeavour is always limited to a
> small percentage... that's why competition was invented...
>
> as far as tv or any other form of entertainment media is concerned... it's> no different... network executives... (and most people in general) are
> motivated by money, not quality... it doesn't matter to the bean counters if
> something is critically acclaimed... nor does it really matter to most
> people... particularly those who waste their time and their minds on crap
> like gameshows...
>
> most everything is crap because most people prefer crap...



	Here's my crappy take on most people:


		http://tinyurl.com/yqts4j

"klunk"  wrote in message 
news:irJqj.3144$Ly.2015@pd7urf1no...
>
> "Meldon"  wrote in message 
> news:13qlg9f2cs5h7c6@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "klunk"  wrote in message 
>> news:4bsqj.258$FA.227@pd7urf2no...
>>>
>>> "Meldon"  wrote in message 
>>> news:13qj6j3n5k8ttf5@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>I wonder why?
>>>
>>> same reason 99.9999% of posts here are crap... you have to dig to find 
>>> the pearls...
>>>
>>
>> Digging may be required to find the pearls, but surely you're not 
>> suggesting it is the reason. If you are, please expand on the concept.
>
>
> digging is not a reason but a result of a desire to find "greater reward 
> for one's effort"...
>
> the simple fact that a majority of what you encounter is crap is because 
> it simply is... the best of any area of human endeavour is always limited 
> to a small percentage... that's why competition was invented...
>
> as far as tv or any other form of entertainment media is concerned... it's 
> no different... network executives... (and most people in general) are 
> motivated by money, not quality... it doesn't matter to the bean counters 
> if something is critically acclaimed... nor does it really matter to most 
> people... particularly those who waste their time and their minds on crap 
> like gameshows...
>
> most everything is crap because most people prefer crap...
>
>

I see your point but I think I have to disagree with the last statement. For 
years those same media suits have been touting the line "give the people 
what they want" while they flood the air with productions that fail to meet 
a minimum standard of thoughtful content. By comparison, Seinfeld for 
instance, as lightweight as it was, provided some level of humor and was 
very popular. If your statement was true, that production would not have 
achieved such broad acclaim.

I think if all we had was thought provoking high quality programming we 
would also grow tired of it, but the shit they are peddling these days is 
proof the standard continues to drop. This as you point out is likely due to 
economic constraints and motives by those in charge. Still, they spend huge 
amounts on effects in major motion pictures and build the story around 
senseless pap in most cases (remake of the Planet of the Apes comes to 
mind).

Quantity versus quality is definitely a major part of the equation though. 
I'm starting the think that most of the decision makers are actually quite 
stupid and the low level of quality or content is a direct reflection of 
their intellectual abilities. This would indicate something wrong with they 
way in which people are selected for positions. One only has to look at such 
legislation as Employment Equity to see how that works. Merit counts for 
very little but gender and race becomes the primary concern. Ethno-centric 
nepotism is another culprit. I won't mention by name this group who seems to 
think they have an inherent and genetic superiority in creative ability. I 
think by the resulting products of the industries I mentioned, we all see 
that this self-delusional superiority complex is patently false.

I once played a musical engagement with a young sax player who later refused 
any further engagements with me. He wasn't bad but clearly considered 
himself some sort of musical genius. Despite his self-proclaimed talent, he 
played so loud he nearly blew the hearing aids from the ears of the seniors 
we were playing to not to mention completely overriding my unamplified 
acoustic guitar. Any musician with real talent would take into consideration 
those types of variables when performing. This young "genius" failed to 
adjust and ironically viewed me as the hack.

I returned to that location and performed a solo some months later and 
received a luke warm response. Afterward I couldn't help wonder if I would 
have provided a slew of campy gimmicks the audience would have been more 
receptive. I like to think that most people are not as stupid as their 
actions would suggest but as time goes on the evidence accumulates that most 
do not or can not access any intellect greater than that of chewing a piece 
of gum. In this regard, I can empathize with the production executives but 
damn it - that's no excuse to keep peddling rotten fish and calling it 
caviar.

"Meldon"  wrote in message 
news:13qn0h1iab1qpdb@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "klunk"  wrote in message 
> news:irJqj.3144$Ly.2015@pd7urf1no...
>>
>> "Meldon"  wrote in message 
>> news:13qlg9f2cs5h7c6@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "klunk"  wrote in message 
>>> news:4bsqj.258$FA.227@pd7urf2no...
>>>>
>>>> "Meldon"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:13qj6j3n5k8ttf5@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>I wonder why?
>>>>
>>>> same reason 99.9999% of posts here are crap... you have to dig to find 
>>>> the pearls...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Digging may be required to find the pearls, but surely you're not 
>>> suggesting it is the reason. If you are, please expand on the concept.
>>
>>
>> digging is not a reason but a result of a desire to find "greater reward 
>> for one's effort"...
>>
>> the simple fact that a majority of what you encounter is crap is because 
>> it simply is... the best of any area of human endeavour is always limited 
>> to a small percentage... that's why competition was invented...
>>
>> as far as tv or any other form of entertainment media is concerned... 
>> it's no different... network executives... (and most people in general) 
>> are motivated by money, not quality... it doesn't matter to the bean 
>> counters if something is critically acclaimed... nor does it really 
>> matter to most people... particularly those who waste their time and 
>> their minds on crap like gameshows...
>>
>> most everything is crap because most people prefer crap...
>>
>>
>
> I see your point but I think I have to disagree with the last statement. 
> For years those same media suits have been touting the line "give the 
> people what they want" while they flood the air with productions that fail 
> to meet a minimum standard of thoughtful content. By comparison, Seinfeld 
> for instance, as lightweight as it was, provided some level of humor and 
> was very popular. If your statement was true, that production would not 
> have achieved such broad acclaim.

my statement was true from a general perspective... there are always 
exceptions... and those exceptions always change much of what has inevitably 
become inured with formulaic mindlessness... seinfeld, for much of its 
"critical acclaim" also becomes an example of "populist and lowest common 
denominator thinking" when considering its status... it is by no means the 
best of the best of television... but, because it is comedy, which appeals 
most broadly to the lowest of brows and intellects... it did break some new 
ground, but imho, that ground is as incrementally minute as a microsecond 
counter on a watch...


> I think if all we had was thought provoking high quality programming we 
> would also grow tired of it, but the shit they are peddling these days is 
> proof the standard continues to drop. This as you point out is likely due 
> to economic constraints and motives by those in charge. Still, they spend 
> huge amounts on effects in major motion pictures and build the story 
> around senseless pap in most cases (remake of the Planet of the Apes comes 
> to mind).

actually, your statement defines a level of bias regarding what constitutes 
"thought provoking high quality programming"... and your logic suggests a 
propensity to support a state of mental inactivity... for the 
record..."thought provoking high quality programming" isn't limited to the 
history channel or bravo... it also includes comedy... and this is where 
seinfeld succeeded... it did provoke thought... and it provoked thoughts on 
issues in a non-threatening and entertaining manner to those whose 
preference is intellectual inertia...

your assessment of efforts like Planet of the Apes affirms my statement 
about big budget productions being driven by money and not quality... and 
this is further reflected in the current writers strike... "as they say in 
the biz", "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage"...

quality in such productions is determined along a spectrum of evaluations... 
and although i'll agree that the story was weak... as was much of the 
acting... directing was okay imho and the production values were superb... 
aside from that... yes it was mostly mindless pabulum... but that's a 
phenomenom which fits another populist saying, "shit rolls downhill"... if 
the producer's a greedy wank-job without a clue what constitutes literature, 
theatre and the arts in general, then all s/he'll be able to accept under 
their direction is that for which they have an affinity toward...



> Quantity versus quality is definitely a major part of the equation though.

from the perspective of entertainment being a business... yeah... the 
predominate strategy appears to be the more that's out there, the more that 
can be sold... shows like seinfeld ran with a small group of support for 3 
years before breaking through to become a mainstream phenomenon...


> I'm starting the think that most of the decision makers are actually quite 
> stupid and the low level of quality or content is a direct reflection of 
> their intellectual abilities. This would indicate something wrong with 
> they way in which people are selected for positions. One only has to look 
> at such legislation as Employment Equity to see how that works. Merit 
> counts for very little but gender and race becomes the primary concern. 
> Ethno-centric nepotism is another culprit. I won't mention by name this 
> group who seems to think they have an inherent and genetic superiority in 
> creative ability. I think by the resulting products of the industries I 
> mentioned, we all see that this self-delusional superiority complex is 
> patently false.


this is exactly what i see the problem with mass media to be... and the 
larger the entities are that direct the production and flow of content, 
(generally) the lower the level of quality and the dumber those are at the 
top... small businesses or new concepts are driven by visionaries who change 
the world, when those new concepts are adopted by and absorbed into the 
mainstream, they attract more of those whom are motivated by money not 
quality...


> I once played a musical engagement with a young sax player who later 
> refused any further engagements with me. He wasn't bad but clearly 
> considered himself some sort of musical genius. Despite his 
> self-proclaimed talent, he played so loud he nearly blew the hearing aids 
> from the ears of the seniors we were playing to not to mention completely 
> overriding my unamplified acoustic guitar. Any musician with real talent 
> would take into consideration those types of variables when performing. 
> This young "genius" failed to adjust and ironically viewed me as the hack.

lol... ego... what else is new... it's everywhere... and it's always the 
incompetent idiot that inflates their own in order to elevate their 
self-esteem and justify their shortcomings... and always on the backs of 
others...


> I returned to that location and performed a solo some months later and 
> received a luke warm response. Afterward I couldn't help wonder if I would 
> have provided a slew of campy gimmicks the audience would have been more 
> receptive. I like to think that most people are not as stupid as their 
> actions would suggest but as time goes on the evidence accumulates that 
> most do not or can not access any intellect greater than that of chewing a 
> piece of gum. In this regard, I can empathize with the production 
> executives but damn it - that's no excuse to keep peddling rotten fish and 
> calling it caviar.

i totally agree... unfortunately, "the machinery" which perpetuates this is 
monumentally complex and is fed by those who choose intellectual laziness as 
a state of being... even more unfortunate is that they seem to outnumber 
those who value reason... fortunately, we're living a few thousand years 
into the "age of reason", and so i think we're not as bad off as we would be 
if we were living in the 1400s for example...

"klunk"  wrote in message 
news:ABNqj.3380$Ly.3369@pd7urf1no...
>
> "Meldon"  wrote in message 
> news:13qn0h1iab1qpdb@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "klunk"  wrote in message 
>> news:irJqj.3144$Ly.2015@pd7urf1no...
>>>
>>> "Meldon"  wrote in message 
>>> news:13qlg9f2cs5h7c6@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "klunk"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:4bsqj.258$FA.227@pd7urf2no...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Meldon"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:13qj6j3n5k8ttf5@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>I wonder why?
>>>>>
>>>>> same reason 99.9999% of posts here are crap... you have to dig to find 
>>>>> the pearls...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Digging may be required to find the pearls, but surely you're not 
>>>> suggesting it is the reason. If you are, please expand on the concept.
>>>
>>>
>>> digging is not a reason but a result of a desire to find "greater reward 
>>> for one's effort"...
>>>
>>> the simple fact that a majority of what you encounter is crap is because 
>>> it simply is... the best of any area of human endeavour is always 
>>> limited to a small percentage... that's why competition was invented...
>>>
>>> as far as tv or any other form of entertainment media is concerned... 
>>> it's no different... network executives... (and most people in general) 
>>> are motivated by money, not quality... it doesn't matter to the bean 
>>> counters if something is critically acclaimed... nor does it really 
>>> matter to most people... particularly those who waste their time and 
>>> their minds on crap like gameshows...
>>>
>>> most everything is crap because most people prefer crap...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I see your point but I think I have to disagree with the last statement. 
>> For years those same media suits have been touting the line "give the 
>> people what they want" while they flood the air with productions that 
>> fail to meet a minimum standard of thoughtful content. By comparison, 
>> Seinfeld for instance, as lightweight as it was, provided some level of 
>> humor and was very popular. If your statement was true, that production 
>> would not have achieved such broad acclaim.
>
> my statement was true from a general perspective... there are always 
> exceptions... and those exceptions always change much of what has 
> inevitably become inured with formulaic mindlessness... seinfeld, for much 
> of its "critical acclaim" also becomes an example of "populist and lowest 
> common denominator thinking" when considering its status... it is by no 
> means the best of the best of television... but, because it is comedy, 
> which appeals most broadly to the lowest of brows and intellects... it did 
> break some new ground, but imho, that ground is as incrementally minute as 
> a microsecond counter on a watch...
>
>
>> I think if all we had was thought provoking high quality programming we 
>> would also grow tired of it, but the shit they are peddling these days is 
>> proof the standard continues to drop. This as you point out is likely due 
>> to economic constraints and motives by those in charge. Still, they spend 
>> huge amounts on effects in major motion pictures and build the story 
>> around senseless pap in most cases (remake of the Planet of the Apes 
>> comes to mind).
>
> actually, your statement defines a level of bias regarding what 
> constitutes "thought provoking high quality programming"... and your logic 
> suggests a propensity to support a state of mental inactivity... for the 
> record..."thought provoking high quality programming" isn't limited to the 
> history channel or bravo... it also includes comedy... and this is where 
> seinfeld succeeded... it did provoke thought... and it provoked thoughts 
> on issues in a non-threatening and entertaining manner to those whose 
> preference is intellectual inertia...
>
> your assessment of efforts like Planet of the Apes affirms my statement 
> about big budget productions being driven by money and not quality... and 
> this is further reflected in the current writers strike... "as they say in 
> the biz", "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage"...
>
> quality in such productions is determined along a spectrum of 
> evaluations... and although i'll agree that the story was weak... as was 
> much of the acting... directing was okay imho and the production values 
> were superb... aside from that... yes it was mostly mindless pabulum... 
> but that's a phenomenom which fits another populist saying, "shit rolls 
> downhill"... if the producer's a greedy wank-job without a clue what 
> constitutes literature, theatre and the arts in general, then all s/he'll 
> be able to accept under their direction is that for which they have an 
> affinity toward...
>
>
>
>> Quantity versus quality is definitely a major part of the equation 
>> though.
>
> from the perspective of entertainment being a business... yeah... the 
> predominate strategy appears to be the more that's out there, the more 
> that can be sold... shows like seinfeld ran with a small group of support 
> for 3 years before breaking through to become a mainstream phenomenon...
>
>
>> I'm starting the think that most of the decision makers are actually 
>> quite stupid and the low level of quality or content is a direct 
>> reflection of their intellectual abilities. This would indicate something 
>> wrong with they way in which people are selected for positions. One only 
>> has to look at such legislation as Employment Equity to see how that 
>> works. Merit counts for very little but gender and race becomes the 
>> primary concern. Ethno-centric nepotism is another culprit. I won't 
>> mention by name this group who seems to think they have an inherent and 
>> genetic superiority in creative ability. I think by the resulting 
>> products of the industries I mentioned, we all see that this 
>> self-delusional superiority complex is patently false.
>
>
> this is exactly what i see the problem with mass media to be... and the 
> larger the entities are that direct the production and flow of content, 
> (generally) the lower the level of quality and the dumber those are at the 
> top... small businesses or new concepts are driven by visionaries who 
> change the world, when those new concepts are adopted by and absorbed into 
> the mainstream, they attract more of those whom are motivated by money not 
> quality...
>
>
>> I once played a musical engagement with a young sax player who later 
>> refused any further engagements with me. He wasn't bad but clearly 
>> considered himself some sort of musical genius. Despite his 
>> self-proclaimed talent, he played so loud he nearly blew the hearing aids 
>> from the ears of the seniors we were playing to not to mention completely 
>> overriding my unamplified acoustic guitar. Any musician with real talent 
>> would take into consideration those types of variables when performing. 
>> This young "genius" failed to adjust and ironically viewed me as the 
>> hack.
>
> lol... ego... what else is new... it's everywhere... and it's always the 
> incompetent idiot that inflates their own in order to elevate their 
> self-esteem and justify their shortcomings... and always on the backs of 
> others...
>
>
>> I returned to that location and performed a solo some months later and 
>> received a luke warm response. Afterward I couldn't help wonder if I 
>> would have provided a slew of campy gimmicks the audience would have been 
>> more receptive. I like to think that most people are not as stupid as 
>> their actions would suggest but as time goes on the evidence accumulates 
>> that most do not or can not access any intellect greater than that of 
>> chewing a piece of gum. In this regard, I can empathize with the 
>> production executives but damn it - that's no excuse to keep peddling 
>> rotten fish and calling it caviar.
>
> i totally agree... unfortunately, "the machinery" which perpetuates this 
> is monumentally complex and is fed by those who choose intellectual 
> laziness as a state of being... even more unfortunate is that they seem to 
> outnumber those who value reason... fortunately, we're living a few 
> thousand years into the "age of reason", and so i think we're not as bad 
> off as we would be if we were living in the 1400s for example...
>
>

Thanks for your optimism. At this point I really need it.