Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Maybe should watch them seriously some time then. For the most part, 
> these kinds of shows tend to take things way too seriously, due to the 
> people on them being complete twits. If I am wrong about this one, then, 
> guess that proves, once again, that Sci-Fi is marginally more rational a 
> station than "Discovery", which had both the moron that claimed to talk 
> to the dead, the pet psychic women, and and endless series of 
> docu-delusions about people haunted, possessed, etc. by ghosts, demons, 
> or what ever.

Hmm, maybe. Of course, being that they are on Sci-Fi, it is after all 
just entertainment. Who was that guy, always seemed to wear 
uncomfortable shirts.. Richards, something or other... can't remember. 
His show had a talk-show format .. I think I watched it once, and 
immediately dismissed him as a huckster. He does the very typical 
"psychic" dance, asks lots of questions, and makes something up on the 
spot that might be plausible. The one I watched he actually was waaaay 
off. And yet, he was wildly popular. And pet psychic? give me a break!

As for Discover, TLC and their ilk, while I do watch a lot of what they 
have on, (Some of it is entertaining ... sometimes interesting) but over 
the years, they've sort of devolved into TLC being the Interior Design 
channel, Discovery being the psuedo-science channel, Animal Planet being 
Heroic Vets and animals with big teeth, and the Science channel being 
the Xenobilogy and far-off physics speculation channel, with a dose of 
blowing things up, and the occasional manufacturing process.

IOW, they're not so much about the sciences anymore, but rather about 
entertaining the masses.

> 
> Though, I admit, watching cryptozoologists run around looking for "scary 
> creatures" and only finding undefined foot prints and the same lame 
> "heat images" is damn funny, again, until you realize there are people 
> out there "expecting" them to actually find bigfoot at some point. lol
> 

Mm, lots of that stuff on Sci-Fi.. Discovery networks carry it, too, 
sometimes.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message