 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:06:02 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>
> Where I'm from, we get ads *for* crap!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoXVjgktHbc
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> So, we get crap for the sake of ads. Nice.
You are not the customer. You are the product.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:44:51 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake thusly:
> Invisible wrote:
>> on One, etc. Now all there seems to be is "reality" shows. (Uh, 12
>
> I'm told by people in the business it's because you're more likely to
> watch those advertisements. You see a sit-com, you're going to TiVo it
> and skip the commercials and watch it tomorrow. You see a reality show,
> you're going to want to gossip the next day about what happened with
> co-workers, so you'll put up with the advertisements. How true or not
> this is I can only judge based on my opinions of the people who told me
> this.
Perhaps it's because compared to "reality" shows the adverts provide
higher production values and greater entertainment ;-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> You are not the customer. You are the product.
>
You know, a statement like that will really screw with you.
The real clients of television are not the viewers, but the advertisers.
I'm aware of that. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You are not the customer. You are the product.
>>
>
> You know, a statement like that will really screw with you.
>
> The real clients of television are not the viewers, but the advertisers.
> I'm aware of that. :)
Not only am I a product, I am in fact faulty goods. o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> QI is sometimes quite interesting.
I can't believe nobody picked up on this one. I thought it was quite
clever sneaking that one in there! ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Imagine a high-wattage baseline, thunderous drum loops, and a snarling
> synth lead. That's basically the template to every track they've ever
> produced.
>
> Their first album was alright, but most of the tunes are fairly "thin".
> (As in, there's not much to them.) Their new album is much better. I'm
> currently kinda addicted...
>
> http://www.pendulum.com/
>
> You'll get the idea. ;-)
>
Oh, nice :) I looked them up on rhapsody, and listened to a few of their
tracks. Good suggestion indeed.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Imagine a high-wattage baseline, thunderous drum loops, and a snarling
>> synth lead. That's basically the template to every track they've ever
>> produced.
>>
>> Their first album was alright, but most of the tunes are fairly
>> "thin". (As in, there's not much to them.) Their new album is much
>> better. I'm currently kinda addicted...
>>
>> http://www.pendulum.com/
>>
>> You'll get the idea. ;-)
>>
>
> Oh, nice :) I looked them up on rhapsody, and listened to a few of their
> tracks. Good suggestion indeed.
Glad to be of service.
(Even if I only found out because of |NERV|McHaggis...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoXVjgktHbc
Suddenly the thread title takes on a new meaning... :-S
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
