WARNING: Fox conversion of Speedvision to 'NASCAR-vision' eminent...

my letter, which was sent to these people: [email hidden]; [email hidden]; [email hidden] ------------------------------------------------------ Please forward this to Fox/NASCAR executives: quote from Charlotte Business Journal: "The idea for a NASCAR network began two years ago, when the stock-car sanctioning body completed a $2.8 billion broadcast contract with Fox and NBC/Turner. That deal began this year. With viewership at an all-time high, Fox and NASCAR executives have again turned their attention to starting a cable channel. The plan is to convert Speedvision, an existing cable network reaching 41 million households, to the NASCAR Channel." Let me give you all a hint. You mess with Speedvision, who shows greatly varied racing events besides NASCAR Racing, and I will boycott both FOX and "NASCAR-Vision", and ask others to do the same. We DON'T want a good racing channel turned into a single race channel, and I'll be damned if I'm going to watch it. I'll have the cable package (which I got just BECAUSE of Speedvision) removed. You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. Don't mess up a good format that shows alot more varied racing than just NASCAR. And don't tell me that you'll host other racing events on there...I can bet my bottom dollar that ANYTHING that would compete against NASCAR-owned series will be dropped in favor of NASCAR sanctioned events. Jan Kohl

Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give you the viewing you desire. ;-) I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and change it to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the right to do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't even watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are catering. Thanks. "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ho7_6.82559$[email hidden]... > my letter, which was sent to these people: [email hidden];[email hidden]; [email hidden] > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Please forward this to Fox/NASCAR executives: > > quote from Charlotte Business Journal: > "The idea for a NASCAR network began two years ago, when the stock-carsanctioning body completed a $2.8 billion > broadcast contract with Fox and NBC/Turner. That deal began this year.With viewership at an all-time high, Fox and > NASCAR executives have again turned their attention to starting a cablechannel. The plan is to convert Speedvision, an > existing cable network reaching 41 million households, to the NASCARChannel." > > Let me give you all a hint. You mess with Speedvision, who shows greatlyvaried racing events besides NASCAR Racing, > and I will boycott both FOX and "NASCAR-Vision", and ask others to do thesame. We DON'T want a good racing channel > turned into a single race channel, and I'll be damned if I'm going towatch it. I'll have the cable package (which I > got just BECAUSE of Speedvision) removed. > > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. Don't mess up agood format that shows alot more varied racing > than just NASCAR. And don't tell me that you'll host other racing eventson there...I can bet my bottom dollar that > ANYTHING that would compete against NASCAR-owned series will be dropped infavor of NASCAR sanctioned events. > > Jan Kohl > >

"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give you the > viewing you desire. ;-) > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and change it > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the right to > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't even > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are > catering.

Eddie, obviously speaking from the point of knowing nothing about me, I've been a NASCAR fan since 1970. I have watched almost every NASCAR race for the past 8 years. I like watching NASCAR Racing. So, point one on your end...gone. Speedvision is NOT NASCAR-vision. Now I'll make an assumption about you...do YOU watch any other form of racing? If not, all I'll say is...figures. If you do, you would realize that whether or not they own the station has nothing to do with what viewers want to see. I bought and paid good money for the extra package that has Speedvision, I'll be darned if I sit quietly by and let them change it into NASCAR-vision. -- �� Jan Kohl �� SECURITY CONSULTANT The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com

They're not going to show 24 hours of Nascar. They're going to keep F1 and many of the other types of racing that are shown. What they will get rid of, I hope, are the boat races, the 6 hours straight of motorbikes, and the infomercials :-) I would much rather see other races that are sanctioned by Nascar (my local dirt track happens to be one of many) then those types of programs. This may not appeal to you, but to the majority I think it would be welcomed. And the majority is all the really counts when dollars are involved. Doug "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give you the > viewing you desire. ;-) > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and changeit > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the rightto

Quoted text (25 lines)

> do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't even > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are > catering. > > Thanks. > > "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ho7_6.82559$[email hidden]... > > my letter, which was sent to these people: [email hidden]; > [email hidden]; [email hidden] > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Please forward this to Fox/NASCAR executives: > > > > quote from Charlotte Business Journal: > > "The idea for a NASCAR network began two years ago, when the stock-car > sanctioning body completed a $2.8 billion > > broadcast contract with Fox and NBC/Turner. That deal began this year. > With viewership at an all-time high, Fox and > > NASCAR executives have again turned their attention to starting a cable > channel. The plan is to convert Speedvision, an > > existing cable network reaching 41 million households, to the NASCAR > Channel." > > > > Let me give you all a hint. You mess with Speedvision, who shows

greatly > varied racing events besides NASCAR Racing, > > and I will boycott both FOX and "NASCAR-Vision", and ask others to dothe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> same. We DON'T want a good racing channel > > turned into a single race channel, and I'll be damned if I'm going to > watch it. I'll have the cable package (which I > > got just BECAUSE of Speedvision) removed. > > > > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. Don't mess up a > good format that shows alot more varied racing > > than just NASCAR. And don't tell me that you'll host other racing

events > on there...I can bet my bottom dollar that > > ANYTHING that would compete against NASCAR-owned series will be droppedin

Quoted text (7 lines)

> favor of NASCAR sanctioned events. > > > > Jan Kohl > > > > > >

You correct that I knew nothing about you. I agree with you in basic principle, you have a right to cancel your subscription to Speedvision. It's the threat of boycott against FOX, NASCAR and god only knows who else that I'm against. FWIW: I really only have time to watch NASCAR these days, so I'm not certain how I feel about this. However, I will add that if the market desires such a channel it's certain to be back. Thanks. "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Eg8_6.82957$[email hidden]... > "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]... > > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give youthe > > viewing you desire. ;-) > > > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and changeit > > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the rightto

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't even > > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are > > catering. > > Eddie, obviously speaking from the point of knowing nothing about me, > > I've been a NASCAR fan since 1970. I have watched almost every NASCAR

race > for the past 8 years. I like watching NASCAR Racing. So, point one onyour end...gone. > > Speedvision is NOT NASCAR-vision. Now I'll make an assumption aboutyou...do YOU > watch any other form of racing? If not, all I'll say is...figures. > > If you do, you would realize that whether or not they own the station hasnothing to do with > what viewers want to see. I bought and paid good money for the extrapackage that has > Speedvision, I'll be darned if I sit quietly by and let them change itinto NASCAR-vision.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > -- > �� Jan Kohl �� > SECURITY CONSULTANT > The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com > Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com > >

"Doug Justice" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> They're not going to show 24 hours of Nascar. They're going to keep F1 and > many of the other types of racing that are shown. What they will get rid of, > I hope, are the boat races, the 6 hours straight of motorbikes, and the > infomercials :-) > > I would much rather see other races that are sanctioned by Nascar (my local > dirt track happens to be one of many) then those types of programs. This may > not appeal to you, but to the majority I think it would be welcomed. And the > majority is all the really counts when dollars are involved.

Doug, I don't watch those either, but let me give you several examples of direct competition against NASCAR-sanctioned events. American LeMans Series. As a road racing series, it competes directly against NASCAR's Grand American. Granted, ALMS is more factory prototypes than GA, but I rather doubt they would show ALMS events on a NASCAR-sanctioned channel. Trans Am. Several Trans Am events run exactly at the same time as NASCAR-events. Either they will (A tape-delay it and show it later, or B) not show it at all. And what if T/A starts to gain ground on viewer audience? 24 hours of LeMans. Several NASCAR shows coincide directly with this program. A BGN race, as well as qualifying and practice for the WC event. Do you think they will show the 24 hours of Le Mans vs these events? What did I watch? The BGN race during that part of the day...but I'm sure many were tuned into the 24 hours..and I certainly DIDN'T watch qual or practice in favor of LeMans... F1. Several Formula 1 events coincide with NASCAR events, mostly the ones over on this hemisphere, of course. F1 or NASCAR on NASCAR-vision? I'm rather astounded that the two responses thus far have been negative...I thought most people on RAS were rather open about all forms of racing, but maybe I was wrong. Or, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough...I'm not opposed to a NASCAR channel, I'm opposed to turning **Speedvision** into a NASCAR channel. Cheers! -- �� Jan Kohl �� SECURITY CONSULTANT The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com

"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give you the > viewing you desire. ;-) > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and changeit > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the rightto > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't even > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are > catering. > > Thanks. 41 million? You might be way off on your numbers. http://www.sportsline.com/u/wire/stories/0,1169,3621187_6,00.html Besides, I think we already have a NASCAR channel. It's the same one that shows Hee-Haw. David G Fisher

Check out this article: http://www.journalnow.com/wsj/sports/MGBY2C36COC.html At the end it talks about a "soft" launch this fall, whatever the hell that means, then in February they go full tilt! If the do away with F1, Rally, Road-Racing like ALMS and Grand Am, plus Trans AM, the Historic shows like Legends of Motorsports, SV News Raceweek, and all the other diverse coverage and go 100% NAPCAR that would truly be an injustice to Speedvisions core audience, which I would assume, based on how little NAPCAR coverage they do now, is not overly NASCAR "heavy"! Perhaps a letter writing campaign to Speedvision would be in order? You can send your feedback to them at: [email hidden] However.... If, and I hope to GOD your right Doug, that they will simply do away with the boats, planes and infomercials and replace them with NAPCAR coverage, leaving the rest of the Auto-Racing programming alone, then I'd say terrific! Frankly, I don't believe this will be the case... We can only hope that ESPN will pick up F1 coverage, along with World Rally, Road-Racing, and the rest... But... I'm not holding my breath! Jay J "Doug Justice" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > They're not going to show 24 hours of Nascar. They're going to keep F1 and > many of the other types of racing that are shown. What they will get ridof, > I hope, are the boat races, the 6 hours straight of motorbikes, and the > infomercials :-) > > I would much rather see other races that are sanctioned by Nascar (mylocal > dirt track happens to be one of many) then those types of programs. Thismay > not appeal to you, but to the majority I think it would be welcomed. Andthe

Quoted text (8 lines)

> majority is all the really counts when dollars are involved. > > Doug > > > "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give you

the

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > viewing you desire. ;-) > > > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and change > it > > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the right > to > > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't even > > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are > > catering. > > > > Thanks. > > > > "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:ho7_6.82559$[email hidden]... > > > my letter, which was sent to these people: [email hidden]; > > [email hidden]; [email hidden] > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Please forward this to Fox/NASCAR executives: > > > > > > quote from Charlotte Business Journal: > > > "The idea for a NASCAR network began two years ago, when the stock-car > > sanctioning body completed a $2.8 billion > > > broadcast contract with Fox and NBC/Turner. That deal began this year. > > With viewership at an all-time high, Fox and > > > NASCAR executives have again turned their attention to starting a

cable

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > channel. The plan is to convert Speedvision, an > > > existing cable network reaching 41 million households, to the NASCAR > > Channel." > > > > > > Let me give you all a hint. You mess with Speedvision, who shows > greatly > > varied racing events besides NASCAR Racing, > > > and I will boycott both FOX and "NASCAR-Vision", and ask others to do > the > > same. We DON'T want a good racing channel > > > turned into a single race channel, and I'll be damned if I'm going to > > watch it. I'll have the cable package (which I > > > got just BECAUSE of Speedvision) removed. > > > > > > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. Don't mess up a > > good format that shows alot more varied racing > > > than just NASCAR. And don't tell me that you'll host other racing > events > > on there...I can bet my bottom dollar that > > > ANYTHING that would compete against NASCAR-owned series will be

dropped

Quoted text (10 lines)

> in > > favor of NASCAR sanctioned events. > > > > > > Jan Kohl > > > > > > > > > > > >

I find it hard to sit and watch 4 hours of NASCAR. I'll easily spend 2 hours to watch ARCA, USAR, CART or F1, but usually just watch the first 30min and maybe last hour of NASCAR races. I get my NASCAR fix online ;) I'm hoping they still keep the mix with Speedvision. If it turns into 24hrs of Nascar without 24hrs of LeMans and such, I'll certainly have more time to do other things on the weekend besides watching racing :( Jason. Eddie Pettit wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > FWIW: I really only have time to watch NASCAR these days, so I'm not > certain how I feel about this. However, I will add that if the market > desires such a channel it's certain to be back. > > Thanks. >

-- Jason Monds http://www.proracingclub.com - Pro Racing Club! (N4, GPL, Fun Run Sims) http://www.racersdomain.com - Race hosting. (Please remove 'no extra spork' when replying)

It's the call and boycotting that I'm against... If there's a market for the other forms of racing, they will survive. It's all about money. Thanks. "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NV8_6.83158$[email hidden]... > "Doug Justice" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]... > > They're not going to show 24 hours of Nascar. They're going to keep F1and > > many of the other types of racing that are shown. What they will get ridof, > > I hope, are the boat races, the 6 hours straight of motorbikes, and the > > infomercials :-) > > > > I would much rather see other races that are sanctioned by Nascar (mylocal > > dirt track happens to be one of many) then those types of programs. Thismay > > not appeal to you, but to the majority I think it would be welcomed. Andthe > > majority is all the really counts when dollars are involved. > > Doug, I don't watch those either, but let me give you several examples ofdirect competition > against NASCAR-sanctioned events. > > American LeMans Series. As a road racing series, it competes directlyagainst NASCAR's > Grand American. Granted, ALMS is more factory prototypes than GA, but Irather doubt they > would show ALMS events on a NASCAR-sanctioned channel. > > Trans Am. Several Trans Am events run exactly at the same time asNASCAR-events. > Either they will (A tape-delay it and show it later, or B) not show it atall. And what if > T/A starts to gain ground on viewer audience? > > 24 hours of LeMans. Several NASCAR shows coincide directly with thisprogram. > A BGN race, as well as qualifying and practice for the WC event. Do youthink they > will show the 24 hours of Le Mans vs these events? What did I watch? TheBGN > race during that part of the day...but I'm sure many were tuned into the24 hours..and > I certainly DIDN'T watch qual or practice in favor of LeMans... > > F1. Several Formula 1 events coincide with NASCAR events, mostly the onesover > on this hemisphere, of course. F1 or NASCAR on NASCAR-vision? > > I'm rather astounded that the two responses thus far have beennegative...I thought most > people on RAS were rather open about all forms of racing, but maybe I waswrong. > Or, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough...I'm not opposed to a NASCARchannel,

Quoted text (12 lines)

> I'm opposed to turning **Speedvision** into a NASCAR channel. > > Cheers! > > > -- > �� Jan Kohl �� > SECURITY CONSULTANT > The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com > Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com > >

Well, I only quoted the numbers in the original post. "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c79_6.33$[email hidden]... > > "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give youthe

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > viewing you desire. ;-) > > > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and change > it > > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the right > to > > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't even > > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are > > catering. > > > > Thanks. > > 41 million? You might be way off on your numbers. > http://www.sportsline.com/u/wire/stories/0,1169,3621187_6,00.html > Besides, I think we already have a NASCAR channel. It's the same one that > shows Hee-Haw. > > David G Fisher >

It's the call for boycotting that I'm against... If there's a market for the other forms of racing, they will survive. It's all about money. Thanks. "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NV8_6.83158$[email hidden]... > "Doug Justice" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]... > > They're not going to show 24 hours of Nascar. They're going to keep F1and > > many of the other types of racing that are shown. What they will get ridof, > > I hope, are the boat races, the 6 hours straight of motorbikes, and the > > infomercials :-) > > > > I would much rather see other races that are sanctioned by Nascar (mylocal > > dirt track happens to be one of many) then those types of programs. Thismay > > not appeal to you, but to the majority I think it would be welcomed. Andthe > > majority is all the really counts when dollars are involved. > > Doug, I don't watch those either, but let me give you several examples ofdirect competition > against NASCAR-sanctioned events. > > American LeMans Series. As a road racing series, it competes directlyagainst NASCAR's > Grand American. Granted, ALMS is more factory prototypes than GA, but Irather doubt they > would show ALMS events on a NASCAR-sanctioned channel. > > Trans Am. Several Trans Am events run exactly at the same time asNASCAR-events. > Either they will (A tape-delay it and show it later, or B) not show it atall. And what if > T/A starts to gain ground on viewer audience? > > 24 hours of LeMans. Several NASCAR shows coincide directly with thisprogram. > A BGN race, as well as qualifying and practice for the WC event. Do youthink they > will show the 24 hours of Le Mans vs these events? What did I watch? TheBGN > race during that part of the day...but I'm sure many were tuned into the24 hours..and > I certainly DIDN'T watch qual or practice in favor of LeMans... > > F1. Several Formula 1 events coincide with NASCAR events, mostly the onesover > on this hemisphere, of course. F1 or NASCAR on NASCAR-vision? > > I'm rather astounded that the two responses thus far have beennegative...I thought most > people on RAS were rather open about all forms of racing, but maybe I waswrong. > Or, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough...I'm not opposed to a NASCARchannel,

Quoted text (12 lines)

> I'm opposed to turning **Speedvision** into a NASCAR channel. > > Cheers! > > > -- > �� Jan Kohl �� > SECURITY CONSULTANT > The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com > Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com > >

"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give you the > viewing you desire. ;-) > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and changeit > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the rightto > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't even > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are > catering. > > Thanks. 41 million? You might be way off on your numbers. http://www.sportsline.com/u/wire/stories/0,1169,3621187_6,00.html Besides, I think we already have a NASCAR channel. It's the same one that shows Hee-Haw. David G Fisher

> It's the call and boycotting that I'm against... > > If there's a market for the other forms of racing, they will survive. > > It's all about money. Precisely...and this is the reason I think only threats of not watching "NASCAR-vision" are the only things that corperate Fox/NASCAR will listen to! I've got 4 Fox channels, (not counting Speedvision), Fox Sports World, Fox Sports, FX, and Fox. If Fox/NASCAR got 500 letters of "please don't change the format of Speedvision, I like it" do you think that corperate heads (who are eagerly watching their returns on their investment in NASCAR) really care? I don't, otherwise they would have never suggested changing Speedvision in the first place. If they got 500 letters of "I'll remove my cable channels before I let you change Speedvision", that's certainly more likely to turn a few heads...the good thing about you, Eddie, is that you don't think like corperate America...I, unfortunately, have had too many run-ins not to see the danger signs. And sure, they may say they'll continue to show other forms of racing...but I can guarantee one thing...they're NOT calling it a "NASCAR" channel for nothing... Sure, maybe someone else will take up the slack and try to get the other races...but then again, what will we miss until they do so? How long will we have to wait? A month? A year? 2 years? IMHO, taking a bite at the root of the problem may make a difference. And maybe it won't. But I'm certainly willing to try, as I mentioned before, I LIKE watching all the other racing I get (and paid for) on Speedvision, and I'm certainly not willing to give up the ghost while it's still in the 'thinking' stages... Cheers! -- �� Jan Kohl �� SECURITY CONSULTANT The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com

"Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ho7_6.82559$[email hidden]... > my letter, which was sent to these people: [email hidden];[email hidden]; [email hidden] > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Please forward this to Fox/NASCAR executives: > > quote from Charlotte Business Journal: > "The idea for a NASCAR network began two years ago, when the stock-carsanctioning body completed a $2.8 billion > broadcast contract with Fox and NBC/Turner. That deal began this year.With viewership at an all-time high, Fox and > NASCAR executives have again turned their attention to starting a cablechannel. The plan is to convert Speedvision, an > existing cable network reaching 41 million households, to the NASCARChannel." > > Let me give you all a hint. You mess with Speedvision, who shows greatlyvaried racing events besides NASCAR Racing, > and I will boycott both FOX and "NASCAR-Vision", and ask others to do thesame. We DON'T want a good racing channel > turned into a single race channel, and I'll be damned if I'm going towatch it. I'll have the cable package (which I > got just BECAUSE of Speedvision) removed. > > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. Don't mess up agood format that shows alot more varied racing > than just NASCAR. And don't tell me that you'll host other racing eventson there...I can bet my bottom dollar that > ANYTHING that would compete against NASCAR-owned series will be dropped infavor of NASCAR sanctioned events. > > Jan Kohl This is not good at all. I love NASCAR. I either attend or watch almost every Cup and Busch race every year. I also love just about every type of racing out there. I got a digital cable converter just because my crappy cable co. only carries Speedvision on their digital service. I would be super pissed if they dropped WRC, SBK, F1, or any of the other racing series that Speedvision covers and I would definitely let them know how unhappy I would be. Kyle

LMAO...rpm2night isn't a news show? That's about the only racing show on tv where the commentators don't sugar-coat mistakes made by ANY series. NASCAR is really starting to outgrow themselves...first it was tracks, and not it's the attitude they approach problems...hope it is like Sacks says and it's Fox's problem. BTW I agree with you Jan, I don't have Speedvision (I have called the cable company about 10 times trying to get it), but if they make it all the NASCAR channel I will feel fine retracting my request...besides I would rather watch ESPN Classic NASCAR races which I've never seen than a bunch of truly NASCAR "magazine" shows. Jon "Jay J" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tg9_6.380287$[email hidden]... > Check out this article: > > http://www.journalnow.com/wsj/sports/MGBY2C36COC.html > > At the end it talks about a "soft" launch this fall, whatever the hellthat > means, then in February they go full tilt! > > If the do away with F1, Rally, Road-Racing like ALMS and Grand Am, plus > Trans AM, the Historic shows like Legends of Motorsports, SV NewsRaceweek, > and all the other diverse coverage and go 100% NAPCAR that would truly bean > injustice to Speedvisions core audience, which I would assume, based onhow

Quoted text (9 lines)

> little NAPCAR coverage they do now, is not overly NASCAR "heavy"! > > Perhaps a letter writing campaign to Speedvision would be in order? > > You can send your feedback to them at: > > [email hidden] > > However.... If, and I hope to GOD your right Doug, that they will simply

do > away with the boats, planes and infomercials and replace them with NAPCAR > coverage, leaving the rest of the Auto-Racing programming alone, then I'd > say terrific! > > Frankly, I don't believe this will be the case... We can only hope thatESPN

Quoted text (9 lines)

> will pick up F1 coverage, along with World Rally, Road-Racing, and the > rest... But... I'm not holding my breath! > > Jay J > > > "Doug Justice" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > They're not going to show 24 hours of Nascar. They're going to keep F1

and

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > many of the other types of racing that are shown. What they will get rid > of, > > I hope, are the boat races, the 6 hours straight of motorbikes, and the > > infomercials :-) > > > > I would much rather see other races that are sanctioned by Nascar (my > local > > dirt track happens to be one of many) then those types of programs. This > may > > not appeal to you, but to the majority I think it would be welcomed. And > the > > majority is all the really counts when dollars are involved. > > > > Doug > > > > > > "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give you > the > > > viewing you desire. ;-) > > > > > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and

change > > it > > > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have theright > > to > > > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don'teven

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are > > > catering. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:ho7_6.82559$[email hidden]... > > > > my letter, which was sent to these people: [email hidden]; > > > [email hidden]; [email hidden] > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Please forward this to Fox/NASCAR executives: > > > > > > > > quote from Charlotte Business Journal: > > > > "The idea for a NASCAR network began two years ago, when the

stock-car > > > sanctioning body completed a $2.8 billion > > > > broadcast contract with Fox and NBC/Turner. That deal began thisyear.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > With viewership at an all-time high, Fox and > > > > NASCAR executives have again turned their attention to starting a > cable > > > channel. The plan is to convert Speedvision, an > > > > existing cable network reaching 41 million households, to the NASCAR > > > Channel." > > > > > > > > Let me give you all a hint. You mess with Speedvision, who shows > > greatly > > > varied racing events besides NASCAR Racing, > > > > and I will boycott both FOX and "NASCAR-Vision", and ask others to

do > > the > > > same. We DON'T want a good racing channel > > > > turned into a single race channel, and I'll be damned if I'm goingto > > > watch it. I'll have the cable package (which I > > > > got just BECAUSE of Speedvision) removed. > > > > > > > > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. Don't mess upa

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > good format that shows alot more varied racing > > > > than just NASCAR. And don't tell me that you'll host other racing > > events > > > on there...I can bet my bottom dollar that > > > > ANYTHING that would compete against NASCAR-owned series will be > dropped > > in > > > favor of NASCAR sanctioned events. > > > > > > > > Jan Kohl > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Has everyone forgotten that the press and the media has an obligation to serve the people? Since when did we all think it's OK for the owners of the media to do what they want with it... and if people try to say something about it, we're being anti-capitalist ore something. Secondly, since when is some guys right to do what hell he wants with the media without getting hassled more important than the right of the people to assemble? It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the people to protest and boycott if they aren't getting what they want from the media. Frankly Eddie, if your favorite form of racing were F1 and sports cars, you wouldn't feel quite the same, so what the hell are you talking about? FWIW, NASCAR has been my favorite form of racing for at least a decade, but I get enough of that on all the other channels, is there really 24 hours worth of info about nascar, without a bunch of repeats? Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You correct that I knew nothing about you. > > I agree with you in basic principle, you have a right to cancel your > subscription to Speedvision. It's the threat of boycott against FOX,NASCAR

Quoted text (17 lines)

> and god only knows who else that I'm against. > > FWIW: I really only have time to watch NASCAR these days, so I'm not > certain how I feel about this. However, I will add that if the market > desires such a channel it's certain to be back. > > Thanks. > > "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Eg8_6.82957$[email hidden]... > > "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give you > the > > > viewing you desire. ;-) > > > > > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and

change > it > > > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have theright > to > > > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don'teven

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are > > > catering. > > > > Eddie, obviously speaking from the point of knowing nothing about me, > > > > I've been a NASCAR fan since 1970. I have watched almost every NASCAR > race > > for the past 8 years. I like watching NASCAR Racing. So, point one on > your end...gone. > > > > Speedvision is NOT NASCAR-vision. Now I'll make an assumption about > you...do YOU > > watch any other form of racing? If not, all I'll say is...figures. > > > > If you do, you would realize that whether or not they own the station

has

Quoted text (16 lines)

> nothing to do with > > what viewers want to see. I bought and paid good money for the extra > package that has > > Speedvision, I'll be darned if I sit quietly by and let them change it > into NASCAR-vision. > > > > > > -- > > �� Jan Kohl �� > > SECURITY CONSULTANT > > The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com > > Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com > > > > > >

"Kyle Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... : I would be : super pissed if they dropped WRC, SBK, F1, or any of the other racing series : that Speedvision covers and I would definitely let them know how unhappy I : would be. : And where else on TV would we see the movies Grand Prix and Le Mans. Dale.

My Guess Jan is... Formula 1: Either they keep it, or ESPN gets it, now that there is a USGP it will get covered somewhere. Most likely. 24LM: End up with broken up coverage, and possibly a return to the bad old days of no coverage at all. Same goes for Sebring ALMS: competes with Nascars grand AM and ends up showing sparingly on NBC. Funding and attendance suffer. WRC: They keep the 1 hour shows and good late night filler. some of the cheap international shows they purchase stay. LegendsMS: Show becomes very NASCAR oriented. (Not all that much to talk about if you ask me.) Speedvision challenge: Derek Daly becomes irate over it's cancellation, and sabotages Nascar in car cameras. Web-site: Loss of neat road racing commentary that actually criticizes the fans for treating Gordon like crap. IRL\CART Split: Bernie buys em both in an unrelated move, moving the entire Indianapolis speedway to eastern Europe to increase interest in the region. Leaving the Americans with a similarly shaped go cart track. Bristol fans delighted, Pocono fans not. Nazareth: Track closed due to lack of major racing series. Jan Kohl: assassinated by Rupert Murdoch... emerges as a sim racing phoenix and breaks 6 minutes at the ring... (wow) Huttu very jealous. Am I missing anything? Jan Kohl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ho7_6.82559$[email hidden]... > my letter, which was sent to these people: [email hidden];[email hidden]; [email hidden] > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Please forward this to Fox/NASCAR executives: > > quote from Charlotte Business Journal: > "The idea for a NASCAR network began two years ago, when the stock-carsanctioning body completed a $2.8 billion > broadcast contract with Fox and NBC/Turner. That deal began this year.With viewership at an all-time high, Fox and > NASCAR executives have again turned their attention to starting a cablechannel. The plan is to convert Speedvision, an > existing cable network reaching 41 million households, to the NASCARChannel." > > Let me give you all a hint. You mess with Speedvision, who shows greatlyvaried racing events besides NASCAR Racing, > and I will boycott both FOX and "NASCAR-Vision", and ask others to do thesame. We DON'T want a good racing channel > turned into a single race channel, and I'll be damned if I'm going towatch it. I'll have the cable package (which I > got just BECAUSE of Speedvision) removed. > > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. Don't mess up agood format that shows alot more varied racing > than just NASCAR. And don't tell me that you'll host other racing eventson there...I can bet my bottom dollar that > ANYTHING that would compete against NASCAR-owned series will be dropped infavor of NASCAR sanctioned events. > > Jan Kohl > >

>"Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. This summarize perfectly the situation. The reason why I like Speedvision so much is because there's NO Nascar on it. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

I'll add my two cents worth...Nascar taking over Speedvision will KILL some of the coverage we get now. Say goodbye to ALMS. Say Goodbye to other Tin Top series...(not that we get DTM or Aussie V8's as it is...) but as Jan says, the likely-hood of a Nascar Channel promoting othere series that compete with it's interests is very very small. We are almost in what could be called the Golden Age of Auto Racing coverage in the USA. How many folks remember the good ol days of ABC's Wide World of Sports, when they would throw in 10 minutes of racing with 3 other sports and cut back and forth between the different events. How many folks remember even seeing short track races on ABC WWs??? I'm sure in Europe they have similar problems with various channels covering only certain events...but in the States....for most of the International events...it's Speedvision or nothing. dave henrie "Dale Green"

> This summarize perfectly the situation. The reason why I like Speedvision > so much is because there's NO Nascar on it. > AMEN!! "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0Jb_6.25007$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >"Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote > > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. > > > This summarize perfectly the situation. The reason why I like Speedvision > so much is because there's NO Nascar on it. > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >

"Kai Fuller" <> > Formula 1: Either they keep it, or ESPN gets it, now that there is a USGPit > will get covered somewhere. Most likely. > > 24LM: End up with broken up coverage, and possibly a return to the bad old > days of no coverage at all. Same goes for Sebring Sebring..the Petite LeMans Le Mans......POOF! (stay tuned for our exclusive 30 minute wrap up of last months 24hour race, someplace in France..) > > ALMS: competes with Nascars grand AM and ends up showing sparingly on NBC. > Funding and attendance suffer. not a chance...who's got the broadcast rights for the 2nd half of the nascar season??? Good old NBC thats who... > > WRC: They keep the 1 hour shows and good late night filler. some of the > cheap international shows they purchase stay. 4 door cars racing without tracks?? I'm restating that no other sedan style racing of any genre would be shown...might lure away 3% of the core audience. > > Speedvision challenge: Derek Daly becomes irate over it's cancellation,and > sabotages Nascar in car cameras. > > Web-site: Loss of neat road racing commentary that actually criticizes the > fans for treating Gordon like crap. > > IRL\CART Split: Bernie buys em both in an unrelated move, moving theentire > Indianapolis speedway to eastern Europe to increase interest in theregion. > Leaving the Americans with a similarly shaped go cart track. Bristol fans > delighted, Pocono fans not. > > Nazareth: Track closed due to lack of major racing series. > > Jan Kohl: assassinated by Rupert Murdoch... emerges as a sim racingphoenix > and breaks 6 minutes at the ring... (wow) Huttu very jealous. > > Am I missing anything? uh yeah...the Xfiles conspiracies.... dave henrie

Actually, the Hee-Haw channel is now The National Network and is showing primetime shows from the 70s and 80s. "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fA9_6.54$[email hidden]... > "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give youthe

Quoted text (20 lines)

> > viewing you desire. ;-) > > > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and change > it > > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the right > to > > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't even > > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are > > catering. > > > > Thanks. > > 41 million? You might be way off on your numbers. > http://www.sportsline.com/u/wire/stories/0,1169,3621187_6,00.html > Besides, I think we already have a NASCAR channel. It's the same one that > shows Hee-Haw. > > David G Fisher > >

I remember those days! I can't see the coverage going away with FOX SportsNet around, unless of course the market isn't there. I have no idea what the ratings are for these various types of racing on SV. "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bTb_6.254367$[email hidden]... > We are almost in what could be called the Golden Age of Auto Racing > coverage in the USA. How many folks remember the good ol days of ABC'sWide > World of Sports, when they would throw in 10 minutes of racing with 3other > sports and cut back and forth between the different events. How manyfolks > remember even seeing short track races on ABC WWs???

Sure, but you aren't only talking about not watching NASCAR-vision, you are talking about not watching any of the FOX or NASCAR programming, that's a bit more than just NASCAR-vision. And don't you think that some of the FOX SportsNet Channels will pick up the other programming? If there's a demand, it won't go away. Thanks. "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Mca_6.83803$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > It's the call and boycotting that I'm against... > > > > If there's a market for the other forms of racing, they will survive. > > > > It's all about money. > > Precisely...and this is the reason I think only threats of not watching

"NASCAR-vision" > are the only things that corperate Fox/NASCAR will listen to! I've got 4Fox channels, > (not counting Speedvision), Fox Sports World, Fox Sports, FX, and Fox. IfFox/NASCAR > got 500 letters of "please don't change the format of Speedvision, I likeit" do you think that > corperate heads (who are eagerly watching their returns on theirinvestment in NASCAR) > really care? I don't, otherwise they would have never suggested changingSpeedvision in > the first place. > > If they got 500 letters of "I'll remove my cable channels before I let youchange Speedvision", > that's certainly more likely to turn a few heads...the good thing aboutyou, Eddie, is that you > don't think like corperate America...I, unfortunately, have had too manyrun-ins not to see > the danger signs. And sure, they may say they'll continue to show otherforms of racing...but > I can guarantee one thing...they're NOT calling it a "NASCAR" channel fornothing... > > Sure, maybe someone else will take up the slack and try to get the otherraces...but then again, > what will we miss until they do so? How long will we have to wait? Amonth? A year? 2 years? > IMHO, taking a bite at the root of the problem may make a difference.And maybe it won't. > But I'm certainly willing to try, as I mentioned before, I LIKE watching all the other racing I > get (and paid for) on Speedvision, and I'm certainly not willing to giveup the ghost while it's

Quoted text (11 lines)

> still in the 'thinking' stages... > > Cheers! > > -- > �� Jan Kohl �� > SECURITY CONSULTANT > The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com > Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com > >

So you're telling me that a group of people own a channel and can't do precisely what they want with it? Why can't they do whatever the market will bear with it? If they market will support it being the "Beannie Baby Channel" and they want to do that, why can't they? They have no obligation beyond making the shareholders money. Does anyone know what the ratings are on non-NASCAR racing? Thanks. "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1hb_6.100496$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Has everyone forgotten that the press and the media has an obligation to > serve the people? > > Since when did we all think it's OK for the owners of the media to do what > they want with it... and if people try to say something about it, we're > being anti-capitalist ore something. > > Secondly, since when is some guys right to do what hell he wants with the > media without getting hassled more important than the right of the people

to > assemble? It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the people to protest and boycott if > they aren't getting what they want from the media. > > Frankly Eddie, if your favorite form of racing were F1 and sports cars,you > wouldn't feel quite the same, so what the hell are you talking about? > > FWIW, NASCAR has been my favorite form of racing for at least a decade,but

Quoted text (25 lines)

> I get enough of that on all the other channels, is there really 24 hours > worth of info about nascar, without a bunch of repeats? > > > > Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > You correct that I knew nothing about you. > > > > I agree with you in basic principle, you have a right to cancel your > > subscription to Speedvision. It's the threat of boycott against FOX, > NASCAR > > and god only knows who else that I'm against. > > > > FWIW: I really only have time to watch NASCAR these days, so I'm not > > certain how I feel about this. However, I will add that if the market > > desires such a channel it's certain to be back. > > > > Thanks. > > > > "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Eg8_6.82957$[email hidden]... > > > "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give

you

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > the > > > > viewing you desire. ;-) > > > > > > > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and > change > > it > > > > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the > right > > to > > > > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't > even > > > > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they

are

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > catering. > > > > > > Eddie, obviously speaking from the point of knowing nothing about me, > > > > > > I've been a NASCAR fan since 1970. I have watched almost every NASCAR > > race > > > for the past 8 years. I like watching NASCAR Racing. So, point one

on

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > your end...gone. > > > > > > Speedvision is NOT NASCAR-vision. Now I'll make an assumption about > > you...do YOU > > > watch any other form of racing? If not, all I'll say is...figures. > > > > > > If you do, you would realize that whether or not they own the station > has > > nothing to do with > > > what viewers want to see. I bought and paid good money for the extra > > package that has > > > Speedvision, I'll be darned if I sit quietly by and let them change it > > into NASCAR-vision. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > �� Jan Kohl �� > > > SECURITY CONSULTANT > > > The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com > > > Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com > > > > > > > > > > > >

You want to keep SV the channel that it is? Buy it. If you can buy it you can program as you see fit. That's my point. Sure, current viewers can complain and they should, but threatening boycotts... "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0Jb_6.25007$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >"Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote > > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. > > > This summarize perfectly the situation. The reason why I like Speedvision > so much is because there's NO Nascar on it. > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >

Eddie Pettit wrote: > > Does anyone know what the ratings are on non-NASCAR racing? Sorry, I don't. But won't the NASCAR race ratings be lower if they move them to a limited distribution network like Speedvision? Let's start our own RASvision! We could show replays of the best GPL races of the week, and throw in DGF rants (a la DML) here and there to balance things out. :)

Dude, why do you think Speedvision exists? It's not about ratings; hell, A.C. Nielsen doesn't even MESS with Speedvision. When have you seen a ratings number for ANYTHING on Speedvision? At last check, America loves its oval-track roots, but for you to sit there and think that us road-racing fans are somehow inferior to someone following the NASCAR juggernaut is a bit arrogant, dude... I respect the hell out of Jan (BTW I have no idea who he is), but it's all about the way he handles himself. I remember him from The Pits, and I agree with the man, though I would use a different methodology... Your ratings comment was unnecessary, stupid, and unsensible. Speedvision is carrying the things that get absolutely no press coverage in America whatsoever, and THAT FACT is what made me spend an extra $20 to merely get digital cable so I could watch the 24 Hours of Le Mans, or Grand-Am road racing, or Australian V8 Supercars on Motorsports Mundial. The biggest races in endurance racing (Le Mans and Daytona) got a brief mention at rpm.espn.com, which caters to NASCAR, F1, CART, and IRL. The ONLY reason Daytona got mention on espn.com is 1) it is raced at the track hosting NASCAR's most prestigious race, and 2) an American car that had on its driving staff a seven-time Winston Cup champion won the race. Do you think they would have covered that race as "extensively" as they did had Dale Earnhardt, Dale Earnhardt Jr., and Kyle Petty not been in that race? Pity ANYONE who likes other forms of worldwide racing that gets absolutely no television coverage here whatsoever, inclusing the number of people here who don't get digital cable, and hence don't get Speedvision. Hell, AMERICAN motorsports (ASA, ARCA, Hav-A-Tampa, etc.) don't even get press here except right there on Speedvision (and MAYBE TNN). So this whole talk of you saying that "Speedvision has the right to do what they want" is a bit slanted, dude. If they want a NASCAR Channel on Speedvision, they OWE the viweing public at least an explanation, not us riding on rumors and innuendo all the time. If they want to change, they are obligated to say so, so I can have ample time to go to the Cox Cable office and kindly trade in my digital cable box for a regular one... Kudos, Jan! I'm behind you, dude! Sundown LRL Engineering Long Live Sports Car GT!

The best and most effective method of complaining is with your wallet. If SV becomes the NASCAR channel, I will cancel my subscription at once. I purchased a whole channel package from Dish Network JUST to get Speedvision. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Todd Walker http://twalker.d2g.com Nikon Coolpix 950 http://twalker.d2g.com/galleries.htm DIGITAL CAMERA REVIEW SITES: http://www.dpreview.com http://www.steves-digicams.com http://www.digitalkamera.de -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:47:47 -0400, "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote: >You want to keep SV the channel that it is? Buy it. If you can buy it you >can program as you see fit. That's my point. Sure, current viewers can >complain and they should, but threatening boycotts...

Well, NASCAR was on FX, which is certainly limited distribution, and they claimed ratings higher than ever... Thanks. "Pierre Robitaille" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Eddie Pettit wrote: > > > > Does anyone know what the ratings are on non-NASCAR racing? > > Sorry, I don't. But won't the NASCAR race ratings be lower if they > move them to a limited distribution network like Speedvision? > > Let's start our own RASvision! > We could show replays of the best GPL races of the week, and throw > in DGF rants (a la DML) here and there to balance things out. :)

>"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote > So you're telling me that a group of people own a channel and can't do > precisely what they want with it? Oh they can do whatever they want to do. And I can do whatever I want to do also, and that very much include NOT watching their pro-NASCAR channel if it ever becomes that. Motorsport does not start and end with the word "Stock-car". -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Wow, it's stupid to think that Speedvision exists to make money? That's what your saying? It exists out of the goodness of someone's heart? If you believe all that nonsense they try to sell you about how it's dedicated to racing, I feel for you. Everything is dedicated to the mighty dollar. I never stated that people that liked other forms of racing other than NASCAR were inferior. I don't even know where you got that idea. The majority of your post is helping to prove my point, if no one cares about that type of racing, by your own admission, why dedicate an entire channel to it? Everything is about dollars and sense. If they think they can make more money selling SV to FOX/NASCAR, they'd be fools not to and have a responsibility to the partners of Speedvision Network LLC to earn them money. I still think that if the audience is there FOX SportsNet will pickup the other racing if it's not shown on SV. BTW, I can respect Jan and disagree with him at the same time. We have different views that's all. Thanks. "Sundown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Dude, why do you think Speedvision exists? It's not about ratings; hell, > A.C. Nielsen doesn't even MESS with Speedvision. When have you seen a > ratings number for ANYTHING on Speedvision? > > At last check, America loves its oval-track roots, but for you to sitthere > and think that us road-racing fans are somehow inferior to someonefollowing > the NASCAR juggernaut is a bit arrogant, dude... > > I respect the hell out of Jan (BTW I have no idea who he is), but it's all > about the way he handles himself. I remember him from The Pits, and Iagree > with the man, though I would use a different methodology... > > Your ratings comment was unnecessary, stupid, and unsensible. Speedvisionis > carrying the things that get absolutely no press coverage in America > whatsoever, and THAT FACT is what made me spend an extra $20 to merely get > digital cable so I could watch the 24 Hours of Le Mans, or Grand-Am road > racing, or Australian V8 Supercars on Motorsports Mundial. The biggestraces

Quoted text (10 lines)

> in endurance racing (Le Mans and Daytona) got a brief mention at > rpm.espn.com, which caters to NASCAR, F1, CART, and IRL. The ONLY reason > Daytona got mention on espn.com is 1) it is raced at the track hosting > NASCAR's most prestigious race, and 2) an American car that had on its > driving staff a seven-time Winston Cup champion won the race. Do you think > they would have covered that race as "extensively" as they did had Dale > Earnhardt, Dale Earnhardt Jr., and Kyle Petty not been in that race? > > Pity ANYONE who likes other forms of worldwide racing that gets absolutely > no television coverage here whatsoever, inclusing the number of people

here > who don't get digital cable, and hence don't get Speedvision. Hell,AMERICAN > motorsports (ASA, ARCA, Hav-A-Tampa, etc.) don't even get press hereexcept > right there on Speedvision (and MAYBE TNN). So this whole talk of yousaying > that "Speedvision has the right to do what they want" is a bit slanted, > dude. If they want a NASCAR Channel on Speedvision, they OWE the viweing > public at least an explanation, not us riding on rumors and innuendo allthe

Quoted text (11 lines)

> time. If they want to change, they are obligated to say so, so I can have > ample time to go to the Cox Cable office and kindly trade in my digital > cable box for a regular one... > > Kudos, Jan! I'm behind you, dude! > > Sundown > LRL Engineering > Long Live Sports Car GT! > >

>"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote > You want to keep SV the channel that it is? Buy it. If you can buy ityou > can program as you see fit. That's my point. Sure, current viewers can > complain and they should, but threatening boycotts... Uhhhh, TV is a medium for the viewers primarily. Ratings decide, only that. Advertising is directly related to the ratings. If I don't watch SV anymore, is the way a simple viewer shows it's disagreement with the business decision a channel may take. You are defending a dead horse. It's almost close to DGF's level. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Eddie Pettit wrote: > > You want to keep SV the channel that it is? Buy it. If you can buy it you > can program as you see fit. That's my point. Sure, current viewers can > complain and they should, but threatening boycotts... Boycotts are as American as apple pie and special interest groups do it all the time. Remember the christian groups that boycotted Disney Corp? How about the gay and lesbien groups boycotting Dr. Laura's syndicated TV show. I'm not saying any group is right or wrong initiating a boycott, but they do tend to get results. MTCW. Gary

Jan Kohl wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > my letter, which was sent to these people: [email hidden]; [email hidden]; [email hidden] > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Please forward this to Fox/NASCAR executives: > > quote from Charlotte Business Journal: > "The idea for a NASCAR network began two years ago, when the stock-car sanctioning body completed a $2.8 billion > broadcast contract with Fox and NBC/Turner. That deal began this year. With viewership at an all-time high, Fox and > NASCAR executives have again turned their attention to starting a cable channel. The plan is to convert Speedvision, an > existing cable network reaching 41 million households, to the NASCAR Channel." > > Let me give you all a hint. You mess with Speedvision, who shows greatly varied racing events besides NASCAR Racing, > and I will boycott both FOX and "NASCAR-Vision", and ask others to do the same. We DON'T want a good racing channel > turned into a single race channel, and I'll be damned if I'm going to watch it. I'll have the cable package (which I > got just BECAUSE of Speedvision) removed. > > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. Don't mess up a good format that shows alot more varied racing > than just NASCAR. And don't tell me that you'll host other racing events on there...I can bet my bottom dollar that > ANYTHING that would compete against NASCAR-owned series will be dropped in favor of NASCAR sanctioned events. > > Jan Kohl

Those bastards! I don't have Speedvision on my cable system, but my friend does and I one of my VCR's over there to tape stuff. (The LeMans coverage this year was stellar! I spent the night at my friends house just so I could watch. I was so juiced because of driving the track in GPL!) I kinda like the variety of racing that Speedvision offers. I guess we can kiss all that goodbye when the good old boys take over. I'll have to stop pestering my cable provider to put Speedvision on their system. Isn't there already enough Nascar on TV? I'm not a Nascar fan, but I do watch the 2 road races. Gary

Well done Sundown! Thank you. Sundown wrote:

Quoted text (43 lines)

> > Dude, why do you think Speedvision exists? It's not about ratings; hell, > A.C. Nielsen doesn't even MESS with Speedvision. When have you seen a > ratings number for ANYTHING on Speedvision? > > At last check, America loves its oval-track roots, but for you to sit there > and think that us road-racing fans are somehow inferior to someone following > the NASCAR juggernaut is a bit arrogant, dude... > > I respect the hell out of Jan (BTW I have no idea who he is), but it's all > about the way he handles himself. I remember him from The Pits, and I agree > with the man, though I would use a different methodology... > > Your ratings comment was unnecessary, stupid, and unsensible. Speedvision is > carrying the things that get absolutely no press coverage in America > whatsoever, and THAT FACT is what made me spend an extra $20 to merely get > digital cable so I could watch the 24 Hours of Le Mans, or Grand-Am road > racing, or Australian V8 Supercars on Motorsports Mundial. The biggest races > in endurance racing (Le Mans and Daytona) got a brief mention at > rpm.espn.com, which caters to NASCAR, F1, CART, and IRL. The ONLY reason > Daytona got mention on espn.com is 1) it is raced at the track hosting > NASCAR's most prestigious race, and 2) an American car that had on its > driving staff a seven-time Winston Cup champion won the race. Do you think > they would have covered that race as "extensively" as they did had Dale > Earnhardt, Dale Earnhardt Jr., and Kyle Petty not been in that race? > > Pity ANYONE who likes other forms of worldwide racing that gets absolutely > no television coverage here whatsoever, inclusing the number of people here > who don't get digital cable, and hence don't get Speedvision. Hell, AMERICAN > motorsports (ASA, ARCA, Hav-A-Tampa, etc.) don't even get press here except > right there on Speedvision (and MAYBE TNN). So this whole talk of you saying > that "Speedvision has the right to do what they want" is a bit slanted, > dude. If they want a NASCAR Channel on Speedvision, they OWE the viweing > public at least an explanation, not us riding on rumors and innuendo all the > time. If they want to change, they are obligated to say so, so I can have > ample time to go to the Cox Cable office and kindly trade in my digital > cable box for a regular one... > > Kudos, Jan! I'm behind you, dude! > > Sundown > LRL Engineering > Long Live Sports Car GT!

>"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote > Wow, it's stupid to think that Speedvision exists to make money? You must be one of those corporate spoiled brat, my son... You will learn with age to enjoy the small time left before you die, like everybody. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Ditto, Speedvision is fine the way it is.. A seperate Nascar channel would be great for all the 24hr Nascar fanatics. I watch Nascar alot but I dont want to lose all the great genres of racing on Speedvision.. Yes even boat & even the goofy riding lawn'mower races...:-) jmo Thom_j. "ymenard" wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

| | This summarize perfectly the situation. The reason why I like Speedvision | so much is because there's NO Nascar on it. | -- | -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> | >"Jan Kohl" wrote: | > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel.

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001

Now this is a keeper!! Haha What a Riot!! I can see it now with all the RASers fighting for the camera spot!! Phew!...lol Gee I wonder who'd be egomaniacal enuff to want the spotlight on here? Hmmm? "Pierre Robitaille" wrote: | Let's start our own RASvision! | We could show replays of the best GPL races of the week, and throw | in DGF rants (a la DML) here and there to balance things out. :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001

The Lawn'Mower races really sky-rocket the Nielsen rating thru the roof on SV!!. :-) "Sundown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... | When have you seen a ratings number for ANYTHING on | Speedvision?<snipped> --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001

"ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:zBe_6.26401$[email hidden]... > >"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote > > So you're telling me that a group of people own a channel and can't do > > precisely what they want with it? > > > Oh they can do whatever they want to do. And I can do whatever I want todo > also, and that very much include NOT watching their pro-NASCAR channel ifit > ever becomes that. > > > Motorsport does not start and end with the word "Stock-car". Maybe someone will buy Eurosport for US cable, or at least the motorsports packages, but I'd guess not. I'll just sit back and watch anything resembling cultural individuality is the USA being reduced to basketball, football, basball and NASCAR. After all, other sports make no money so best not to ever show them. Ironically, even though we have the BBC here, which is "obligated" to show a broad range of content, whether massively popular or not, I find the best motosports coverage on the commerical network station and cable stations ITV, C4, C5 and Eurosport. I'm so spoilt for choice I don't even bother buying the Sky Sports channels, and I almost never bother to tape Motorsport Mundial. Once in a blue moon the late night "men's" cable channel shows saloon car racing from the '60s. God bless America cheers John

"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> It's the call and boycotting that I'm against... > > If there's a market for the other forms of racing, they will survive. > > It's all about money. > > Thanks.

As a consumer, his sole power against that which he objects to, are the dollars in his back pocket. I don't see anything wrong with eg, boycotting all Fox channels, material, CDs, videos whatever. Just as the channel owners are fully entitled to make money regardless of any objection, neither is it any of their business what a disgruntled ex customer does with their hard earned cash. When you learn a little about marketing, you'll realise that sometimes the most obviously profitable route, in the long run, does more harm than good. To say that a media company has more right to make extra money, than a consumer has to choose where he spends his, is laughable hypocrisy. cheers John

"Gary Stephenson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Eddie Pettit wrote: > > > > You want to keep SV the channel that it is? Buy it. If you can buy ityou

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > can program as you see fit. That's my point. Sure, current viewers can > > complain and they should, but threatening boycotts... > > Boycotts are as American as apple pie and special interest groups do it > all the time. Remember the christian groups that boycotted Disney Corp? > How about the gay and lesbien groups boycotting Dr. Laura's syndicated > TV show. I'm not saying any group is right or wrong initiating a > boycott, but they do tend to get results. MTCW. > > Gary

Boycotts are the only way to get your opinion heard. Here's one for you: You can buy our tea, at a grossly inflated price, it's the only tea available, and if you don't like it you can get your own damn tea plantations. Oh that's right, you can't. remember that one? What happened to the American ideal of liberty? You wouldn't take this kind of treatment from a democratically elected government, but as soon as a private business finds a way to screw you for more money while giving you less, you roll over and take it? There will be people who will have a stark choice- either pay up for "NASCAR" branded, reduced value motorsport coverage, or cut off their nose to spite their face have no motorsport coverage. If speedvision is not *losing* money, then betraying the customers who have made it successful enough to be WORTH selling to Fox is simple greed. If speedvision is losing money, though, then you'll have to say it was nice while it lasted, but at least with NASCAR branding, you might get to watch something, if not everything you'd like. Eventually, such rationisation, merger, acquisition and elimnation will result in no choice for anyone. Then all Americans will be equal, all wearing the same clothes, eating the same food, driving the same cars. What do I care, I've got motorsports programmes coming out of my ears over here. cheers John

If you believe that story... As I see it, the rich were tired of sending all that money back to England, they wanted to keep all that money here, yes, they still wanted it collected, but they wanted to be in charge of it... So they started a revolt against the tax which lead to the Revolution. Screwing, you talk about the government screwing people and that we won't take it? We've been taking it for as long as I can remember. They take so much money from us that the average individual must work until the end of April just to pay for the taxes they have levied against us. That's crazy. Greed is the American way... Thanks. "JM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:S5k_6.20610$[email hidden]... > > "Gary Stephenson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Eddie Pettit wrote: > > > > > > You want to keep SV the channel that it is? Buy it. If you can buyit > you > > > can program as you see fit. That's my point. Sure, current viewerscan

Quoted text (28 lines)

> > > complain and they should, but threatening boycotts... > > > > Boycotts are as American as apple pie and special interest groups do it > > all the time. Remember the christian groups that boycotted Disney Corp? > > How about the gay and lesbien groups boycotting Dr. Laura's syndicated > > TV show. I'm not saying any group is right or wrong initiating a > > boycott, but they do tend to get results. MTCW. > > > > Gary > > Boycotts are the only way to get your opinion heard. Here's one for you: > > You can buy our tea, at a grossly inflated price, it's the only tea > available, and if you don't like it you can get your own damn tea > plantations. Oh that's right, you can't. > > remember that one? > > What happened to the American ideal of liberty? > > You wouldn't take this kind of treatment from a democratically elected > government, but as soon as a private business finds a way to screw you for > more money while giving you less, you roll over and take it? > There will be people who will have a stark choice- either pay up for > "NASCAR" branded, reduced value motorsport coverage, or cut off their nose > to spite their face have no motorsport coverage. > > If speedvision is not *losing* money, then betraying the customers who

have > made it successful enough to be WORTH selling to Fox is simple greed. > If speedvision is losing money, though, then you'll have to say it wasnice

Quoted text (18 lines)

> while it lasted, but at least with NASCAR branding, you might get to watch > something, if not everything you'd like. > > > Eventually, such rationisation, merger, acquisition and elimnation will > result in no choice for anyone. > Then all Americans will be equal, all wearing the same clothes, eating the > same food, driving the same cars. > > What do I care, I've got motorsports programmes coming out of my ears over > here. > > cheers > John > > > >

Well, I don't know about you, but I grew up in a poor family and we have worked our way up to owning our own business. If I wanted to sell it and some people came along and talked about boycotting in an attempt to ruin said sale or in an attempt to threaten my living, I'd certainly be upset. As for learning with age, I'm over halfway through my life expectancy now and believe I know how things work. Everything revolves around the mighty $, if you don't think so, I simply suggest you look around. Generally, people only do things for money, take charities for example, did you know that organizations like the FOP, United Way, etc, spend less than 40% of their donations to actually help people or do what they say they will? Most are far less. FTR, I have been involved with Fortune 500 companies and have seen all sides of the corporate coin. The large corporations are out of control, I prefer operating a small family run business where you can actually provide customer support and be proud of the product that you provide Thanks. "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jAf_6.26580$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> >"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote > > Wow, it's stupid to think that Speedvision exists to make money? > > > You must be one of those corporate spoiled brat, my son... You will learn > with age to enjoy the small time left before you die, like everybody. > > > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >

Eddie Pettit wrote: > > Wow, it's stupid to think that Speedvision exists to make money? That's > what your saying? It exists out of the goodness of someone's heart? If you > believe all that nonsense they try to sell you about how it's dedicated to > racing, I feel for you. Everything is dedicated to the mighty dollar. <Snip> Frickin' Capitalists. They don't have a clue. It's there *because* it's different. And Jan, as part of The Market, is speaking up in opposition to this stupid move. I agree wholeheartedly with Jan. -- Fester

Well, the threat of boycotting wasn't only to SV, which I have no problem with. The part that I had a problem with was threatening boycott FOX and NASCAR for changing SV, the change of SV is ultimately up to Speedvision Network LLC. I don't see how you can blame FOX and NASCAR for making such an offer... You can have your opinion and express it and I can have mine and express it. If you expect me not express views that don't agree with you, then I suggest that you filter my posts. Thanks. "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:nDe_6.26409$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote > > You want to keep SV the channel that it is? Buy it. If you can buy it > you > > can program as you see fit. That's my point. Sure, current viewers can > > complain and they should, but threatening boycotts... > > > Uhhhh, TV is a medium for the viewers primarily. Ratings decide, only

that.

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Advertising is directly related to the ratings. If I don't watch SV > anymore, is the way a simple viewer shows it's disagreement with the > business decision a channel may take. > > You are defending a dead horse. It's almost close to DGF's level. > > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >

Eddie Pettit wrote: > > I remember those days! I can't see the coverage going away with FOX > SportsNet around, unless of course the market isn't there. I have no idea > what the ratings are for these various types of racing on SV. So unless your interests mesh with the Mindless Majority, which then Corporate America can assemble together to make money off you, it shouldn't get coverage at all? Get back under your rock, you Capitalist. -- Fester

Eddie Pettit wrote: > > You want to keep SV the channel that it is? Buy it. If you can buy it you > can program as you see fit. That's my point. Sure, current viewers can > complain and they should, but threatening boycotts... So you're telling me that you're stupid enough to financially support those who go in opposition to your interests & viewing desires? To complain & do nothing else is useless. The Corporations just ignore you. Hit them in their damn wallet. They'll have to comply sooner or later. Or fold. -- Fester

I guess calling me a 'Capitalist' (in 2 separate messages) is meant as some type of derogatory comment? What, are you some kind of 'Socialist'? What's wrong with 'Corporate America' making money? I guess you feel people should get the same amount of money whether they actually earn it or not? I guess you also feel that Corporation should give their products away rather than trying to make a profit for their shareholders? Thanks. "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Eddie Pettit wrote: > > > > I remember those days! I can't see the coverage going away with FOX > > SportsNet around, unless of course the market isn't there. I have noidea

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > what the ratings are for these various types of racing on SV. > > > So unless your interests mesh with the Mindless Majority, which then > Corporate America can assemble together to make money off you, it > shouldn't get coverage at all? Get back under your rock, you > Capitalist. > > -- > > Fester

Where have I said that I'm financially supporting "those who go in opposition to my interests & viewing desires"? If I didn't like what FOX/NASCAR did with SV, I'd complain and then cancel my SV subscription. I wouldn't boycott all of FOX or all of NASCAR, simply SV. FWIW, in today's economy, you can't hit a corporation in their wallet... Especially not in this situation. Thanks. "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Eddie Pettit wrote: > > > > You want to keep SV the channel that it is? Buy it. If you can buy ityou

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > can program as you see fit. That's my point. Sure, current viewers can > > complain and they should, but threatening boycotts... > > > So you're telling me that you're stupid enough to financially support > those who go in opposition to your interests & viewing desires? To > complain & do nothing else is useless. The Corporations just ignore > you. Hit them in their damn wallet. They'll have to comply sooner or > later. Or fold. > > -- > > Fester

Jan, all, Don't bother to fight it. It's gonna happen...no matter what. Might as well sit back & enjoy it. My own view is that NASCAR has peaked (probably with the death of our beloved Dale). It's already way overexposed. And confused. If "Friends" jumped from NBC to Fox in mid-season, they'd lose a ton of viewers. That's what the Cup races are doing, and while it may line the capitalist tools' pockets, it's sowing the seeds for a future meltdown. Just so's you know, Roger Werner, the founder of SV (and the OLN, and the godfather of ESPN), swears SV will turn into the NASCAR Channel "over my dead body." So remember the election promise after the election, huh, guys? Maybe this will force some of us off the couch and off to the races. CART could use some better attendance figures.... --Steve Smith "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ho7_6.82559$[email hidden]... > my letter, which was sent to these people: [email hidden];[email hidden]; [email hidden] > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Please forward this to Fox/NASCAR executives: > > quote from Charlotte Business Journal: > "The idea for a NASCAR network began two years ago, when the stock-carsanctioning body completed a $2.8 billion > broadcast contract with Fox and NBC/Turner. That deal began this year.With viewership at an all-time high, Fox and > NASCAR executives have again turned their attention to starting a cablechannel. The plan is to convert Speedvision, an > existing cable network reaching 41 million households, to the NASCARChannel." > > Let me give you all a hint. You mess with Speedvision, who shows greatlyvaried racing events besides NASCAR Racing, > and I will boycott both FOX and "NASCAR-Vision", and ask others to do thesame. We DON'T want a good racing channel > turned into a single race channel, and I'll be damned if I'm going towatch it. I'll have the cable package (which I > got just BECAUSE of Speedvision) removed. > > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. Don't mess up agood format that shows alot more varied racing > than just NASCAR. And don't tell me that you'll host other racing eventson there...I can bet my bottom dollar that > ANYTHING that would compete against NASCAR-owned series will be dropped infavor of NASCAR sanctioned events. > > Jan Kohl > >

Eddie Pettit wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Where have I said that I'm financially supporting "those who go in > opposition to my interests & viewing desires"? > > If I didn't like what FOX/NASCAR did with SV, I'd complain and then cancel > my SV subscription. I wouldn't boycott all of FOX or all of NASCAR, simply > SV.

Pretty hard to attempt to force them into change like that.... > FWIW, in today's economy, you can't hit a corporation in their wallet... > Especially not in this situation. Difficult but not impossible. Depends on how angry/determined you are at striking back. A little research will divulge all the interests the company(ies) has in other enterprises. Boycotts are pretty effective, BTW. Look at the '50's & '60's south in the US. Helped to change a lot. :-) -- Fester

Eddie Pettit wrote: > > I guess calling me a 'Capitalist' (in 2 separate messages) is meant as some > type of derogatory comment? What, are you some kind of 'Socialist'? Funny. Many shortsighted people only see things on a "us or them" basis. If you're anti-Capitalist, you must be Socialist/Communist, they'll say. Realists, on the other hand, see the problems in BOTH systems. I don't go with the "lesser of 2 evils" outlook. If it's wrong, it's wrong, regardless of who/what is involved. Capitalism is every bit as nasty as Socialism/Communism. > What's wrong with 'Corporate America' making money? I guess you feel people > should get the same amount of money whether they actually earn it or not? Absolutely not. THAT'S part of why I'm an anti-Capitalist. ;-) As a company president, for instance, to make money for your shareholders & keep them happy you basically have to steal. The everyday worker-in-the-trenches is the one keeping the company afloat. Let's say that as a worker, your labor gives a value-add to the company's end product of $50. But they only paid you $30. Sure they made a profit. Mr Company President gets a bonus check, the shareholder get dividends, etc. But they took (stole) $20 from you! If you like that, so be it. It happens to me every day & it makes me angry as hell. I'm a mechanic by trade. The company I work for gets paid $70 per new car prep. The company demands we get at least 6 done an hour. Let's see... at my rate of pay, that's slightly less than $3 per prep. THEY deserve the remaining $67? Legalized theft is what I call it. So quit your job & go elsewhere, someone will invariably suggest. Sorry, in a capitalist society, that kind of scene is played out in every business out there. No options. > I guess you also feel that Corporation should give their products away rather > than trying to make a profit for their shareholders? There's also the matter of Drug Companies & AIDS drugs for Africa I read recently. Generic, more affordably priced AIDS drugs were made available to the sick in Africa (and still making a profit even at the greatly reduced price!) but the US Drug Companies stepped in to stop them. Seems if they can't make tons of money on you, you're life's not worth spit. You may be proud of such a system, but it causes people like myself to hold people with such viewpoints in derision. :-) -- Fester

"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Absolutely not. THAT'S part of why I'm an anti-Capitalist. ;-) As a > company president, for instance, to make money for your shareholders & > keep them happy you basically have to steal. The everyday > worker-in-the-trenches is the one keeping the company afloat. Let's say > that as a worker, your labor gives a value-add to the company's end > product of $50. But they only paid you $30. Sure they made a profit. > Mr Company President gets a bonus check, the shareholder get dividends, > etc. But they took (stole) $20 from you! If you like that, so be it. > It happens to me every day & it makes me angry as hell.

Complete and utter rubbish. The employee in the trenches didn't take a risk operating or starting the company, in most cases the employee in the trenches just wants to work specific hours and go home when it's done. They don't want to have the responsibility of coming back or staying late when things go wrong or extra work is needed. The employee in the trenches can simply go find another job if the company goes out of business. Decisions of the shareholders and the president either make or break a company, a front line employee has little effect on the overall picture.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I'm a mechanic by trade. The company I work for gets paid $70 per new > car prep. The company demands we get at least 6 done an hour. Let's > see... at my rate of pay, that's slightly less than $3 per prep. THEY > deserve the remaining $67? Legalized theft is what I call it. So quit > your job & go elsewhere, someone will invariably suggest. Sorry, in a > capitalist society, that kind of scene is played out in every business > out there. No options.

Sounds to me like you just don't have what it takes. I was with a Fortune 500 company and didn't like the decision they were making, what did I do? I left and started my own company. I didn't sit there and whine about 'legalized theft'. Do something about your situation or deal with it. > > I guess you also feel that Corporation should give their products awayrather

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > than trying to make a profit for their shareholders? > > There's also the matter of Drug Companies & AIDS drugs for Africa I read > recently. Generic, more affordably priced AIDS drugs were made > available to the sick in Africa (and still making a profit even at the > greatly reduced price!) but the US Drug Companies stepped in to stop > them. Seems if they can't make tons of money on you, you're life's not > worth spit. You may be proud of such a system, but it causes people > like myself to hold people with such viewpoints in derision.

Tell me how the US Drug Companies were able to stop worldwide distribution of a certain drug, unless of course they produced it.

Eddie Pettit wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Absolutely not. THAT'S part of why I'm an anti-Capitalist. ;-) As a > > company president, for instance, to make money for your shareholders & > > keep them happy you basically have to steal. The everyday > > worker-in-the-trenches is the one keeping the company afloat. Let's say > > that as a worker, your labor gives a value-add to the company's end > > product of $50. But they only paid you $30. Sure they made a profit. > > Mr Company President gets a bonus check, the shareholder get dividends, > > etc. But they took (stole) $20 from you! If you like that, so be it. > > It happens to me every day & it makes me angry as hell. > > Complete and utter rubbish. The employee in the trenches didn't take a risk > operating or starting the company, in most cases the employee in the > trenches just wants to work specific hours and go home when it's done. They > don't want to have the responsibility of coming back or staying late when > things go wrong or extra work is needed. The employee in the trenches can > simply go find another job if the company goes out of business. Decisions > of the shareholders and the president either make or break a company, a > front line employee has little effect on the overall picture.

Without the product they produce, there'd be nothing to make a profit ON. Where is upper management's value-add on the product?

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > I'm a mechanic by trade. The company I work for gets paid $70 per new > > car prep. The company demands we get at least 6 done an hour. Let's > > see... at my rate of pay, that's slightly less than $3 per prep. THEY > > deserve the remaining $67? Legalized theft is what I call it. So quit > > your job & go elsewhere, someone will invariably suggest. Sorry, in a > > capitalist society, that kind of scene is played out in every business > > out there. No options. > > Sounds to me like you just don't have what it takes. I was with a Fortune > 500 company and didn't like the decision they were making, what did I do? I > left and started my own company. I didn't sit there and whine about > 'legalized theft'. Do something about your situation or deal with it.

So in order to defend from being stolen from I should therefore join the ranks of the thieves? No thanks.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > I guess you also feel that Corporation should give their products away > rather > > > than trying to make a profit for their shareholders? > > > > There's also the matter of Drug Companies & AIDS drugs for Africa I read > > recently. Generic, more affordably priced AIDS drugs were made > > available to the sick in Africa (and still making a profit even at the > > greatly reduced price!) but the US Drug Companies stepped in to stop > > them. Seems if they can't make tons of money on you, you're life's not > > worth spit. You may be proud of such a system, but it causes people > > like myself to hold people with such viewpoints in derision. > > Tell me how the US Drug Companies were able to stop worldwide distribution > of a certain drug, unless of course they produced it.

Bingo. Patents. Instead of caring for your fellow human being. Sickening. -- Fester

"Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Without the product they produce, there'd be nothing to make a profit > ON. Where is upper management's value-add on the product? The employees in the trenches are easily replaceable... Good upper management is hard to come by, just look at the dot-com world to see this. > So in order to defend from being stolen from I should therefore join the > ranks of the thieves? No thanks. Well then quit complaining about your lot in life. > Bingo. Patents. Instead of caring for your fellow human being. > Sickening. Patents? You mean intellectual property? You are against intellectual property rights? A company spends millions or billions to develop something and they are supposed to allow people to just give it away? You certainly live in dreamland... What happens to all the shareholders of the company that invested those millions or billions of dollars? Out of luck? No ROTI? Get real... I believe I'm through with you on this subject, you obviously don't agree with my concepts or capitalism and I certainly don't agree with your 'socialism' which doesn't work btw, see Russia. Thanks.

>"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote > You can have your opinion and express it and I can have mine and expressit. > If you expect me not express views that don't agree with you, then Isuggest > that you filter my posts. Welcome to the Usenet my boy. If you can't stand the heat, you know what to do... -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Eddie Pettit wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Without the product they produce, there'd be nothing to make a profit > > ON. Where is upper management's value-add on the product? > > The employees in the trenches are easily replaceable... Good upper > management is hard to come by, just look at the dot-com world to see this.

Still didn't tell me where upper management's value-add on the end product is.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > So in order to defend from being stolen from I should therefore join the > > ranks of the thieves? No thanks. > > Well then quit complaining about your lot in life. > > > Bingo. Patents. Instead of caring for your fellow human being. > > Sickening. > > Patents? You mean intellectual property? You are against intellectual > property rights? A company spends millions or billions to develop something > and they are supposed to allow people to just give it away?

No. We should just let people die right? Hope you or yours never needs help from others when/if you are ever down. > You certainly > live in dreamland... What happens to all the shareholders of the company > that invested those millions or billions of dollars? Out of luck? No ROTI? > Get real... Already told you a system that is "right" doesn't exist. Doesn't mean I look the other way when I see wrongdoing. > > I believe I'm through with you on this subject, you obviously don't agree > with my concepts or capitalism and I certainly don't agree with your > 'socialism' which doesn't work btw, see Russia. They had a terribly flawed system as well. Good riddance to it. I agree we must agree to disagree. Take care. -- Fester

Eddie Pettit wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> It's the call for boycotting that I'm against... > > If there's a market for the other forms of racing, they will survive. > > It's all about money. > > Thanks.

Eddie, The thing that I don't understand about your mantra here is that what Jan proposes IS how the market system is supposed to work. Jan is a consumer, he is disapproving of how someone is doing business, he is making it clear to them that his money spends elsewhere, and he is asking like-minded people to do the same. How else are we to flex our muscle? Michael Lowery

"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote > You can have your opinion and express it and I can have mine and expressit. > If you expect me not express views that don't agree with you, then Isuggest > that you filter my posts. And if you aren't satisfied by your current Usenet experience, you can always start one by yourself <snickers> -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- May the Downforce be with you... -- http://www.ymenard.com/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

Where does it say in my post that I can't stand the heat? I suggested that if you didn't want to hear my views that you filter me from your reader. I sent the below message in response to your post: > You are defending a dead horse. It's almost close to DGF's level. You should try to include the complete message to which you're replying unless of course it was your attempt to deceive people into believing that I somehow was backing down and away... Thanks. "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Pyo_6.30411$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote > > You can have your opinion and express it and I can have mine and express > it. > > If you expect me not express views that don't agree with you, then I > suggest > > that you filter my posts. > > > Welcome to the Usenet my boy. If you can't stand the heat, you know what

to

Quoted text (15 lines)

> do... > > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >

Sorry to bring it back up, but you said I left something unanswered so I'll attempt to answer it... "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Eddie Pettit wrote: > > > > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Without the product they produce, there'd be nothing to make a profit > > > ON. Where is upper management's value-add on the product? > > > > The employees in the trenches are easily replaceable... Good upper > > management is hard to come by, just look at the dot-com world to see

this. > > > Still didn't tell me where upper management's value-add on the end > product is. The upper management made the decisions that allowed the front line people to do their jobs and produce such a fine product, you don't thing the average idiot front line worker could produce it or decide anything on their own do you? > > > Bingo. Patents. Instead of caring for your fellow human being. > > > Sickening. > > > > Patents? You mean intellectual property? You are against intellectual > > property rights? A company spends millions or billions to developsomething > > and they are supposed to allow people to just give it away? > > No. We should just let people die right? Hope you or yours never needs > help from others when/if you are ever down. Some people are just meant to die. You can't save everyone... And I do really believe that. I don't expect help from others to care for my family. We care for ourselves and have insurance for catastrophic needs.

Eh, I'm not certain, I just don't like the thought of boycotts against other products that are produced by the same parent company. Maybe I'm wrong, but it bothers me in the same manner as union strikes... Thanks. "Michael G. Lowery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Eddie Pettit wrote: > > > It's the call for boycotting that I'm against... > > > > If there's a market for the other forms of racing, they will survive. > > > > It's all about money. > > > > Thanks. > > Eddie, > The thing that I don't understand about your mantra here is that what

Jan > proposes IS how the market system is supposed to work. Jan is a consumer,he is > disapproving of how someone is doing business, he is making it clear tothem > that his money spends elsewhere, and he is asking like-minded people to dothe > same. How else are we to flex our muscle? > > Michael Lowery > >

that's exactly what I'm saying... Perhaps you need to: a. read the bill of rights, and realize that the press has a constitutional responsibility to serve the public. b. once again the constitution provides the right and the responsibility of the people to peacefully (ands arguable not so peacefully) assemble to get what they need and want. c. Finally and most importantly, the FCC's original charter (or whatever it was called) stated that for a broadcast outlet to exist and be licensed, that it MUST serve in good interest of the people. So at least not inn America (and probably more so in some European counties) can a guy do what he wants with a television station just because he owns it. Not legally, and certainly not morally. Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > So you're telling me that a group of people own a channel and can't do > precisely what they want with it? Why can't they do whatever the market > will bear with it? If they market will support it being the "Beannie Baby > Channel" and they want to do that, why can't they? They have noobligation

Quoted text (12 lines)

> beyond making the shareholders money. > > Does anyone know what the ratings are on non-NASCAR racing? > > Thanks. > > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:1hb_6.100496$[email hidden]... > > Has everyone forgotten that the press and the media has an obligation to > > serve the people? > > > > Since when did we all think it's OK for the owners of the media to do

what > > they want with it... and if people try to say something about it, we're > > being anti-capitalist ore something. > > > > Secondly, since when is some guys right to do what hell he wants withthe > > media without getting hassled more important than the right of thepeople > to > > assemble? It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the people to protest and boycottif

Quoted text (50 lines)

> > they aren't getting what they want from the media. > > > > Frankly Eddie, if your favorite form of racing were F1 and sports cars, > you > > wouldn't feel quite the same, so what the hell are you talking about? > > > > FWIW, NASCAR has been my favorite form of racing for at least a decade, > but > > I get enough of that on all the other channels, is there really 24 hours > > worth of info about nascar, without a bunch of repeats? > > > > > > > > Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > You correct that I knew nothing about you. > > > > > > I agree with you in basic principle, you have a right to cancel your > > > subscription to Speedvision. It's the threat of boycott against FOX, > > NASCAR > > > and god only knows who else that I'm against. > > > > > > FWIW: I really only have time to watch NASCAR these days, so I'm not > > > certain how I feel about this. However, I will add that if the market > > > desires such a channel it's certain to be back. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:Eg8_6.82957$[email hidden]... > > > > "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give > you > > > the > > > > > viewing you desire. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and > > change > > > it > > > > > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the > > right > > > to > > > > > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't > > even > > > > > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they > are > > > > > catering. > > > > > > > > Eddie, obviously speaking from the point of knowing nothing about

me, > > > > > > > > I've been a NASCAR fan since 1970. I have watched almost everyNASCAR

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > race > > > > for the past 8 years. I like watching NASCAR Racing. So, point one > on > > > your end...gone. > > > > > > > > Speedvision is NOT NASCAR-vision. Now I'll make an assumption about > > > you...do YOU > > > > watch any other form of racing? If not, all I'll say is...figures. > > > > > > > > If you do, you would realize that whether or not they own the

station > > has > > > nothing to do with > > > > what viewers want to see. I bought and paid good money for theextra > > > package that has > > > > Speedvision, I'll be darned if I sit quietly by and let them changeit

Quoted text (16 lines)

> > > into NASCAR-vision. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > �� Jan Kohl �� > > > > SECURITY CONSULTANT > > > > The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com > > > > Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

It's the end of the world as we know it....and I feel fine!

Intelectual property, shouldn't that belong to the guy with the actual intelect... No it's just a patent on an idea they basically baught from someone else. Lets let all those people in Africa die.... Did you know eddie, that people are actually dieing? Have you really considered the people that are actually really dieing? Would you feel the same if it were happening to all your friends in america? How much would patents matter to you if your best freind were about to die? Sure the current reality is that more or les money talks in America, but to say that this is just awesome, and kicks as it indeed the dreamworld... as for Russia, yeah Capitalism is really kicking ass there... Kai Fuller of the USA (For President)

"Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Rep_6.102019$[email hidden]... > Intelectual property, shouldn't that belong to the guy with the actual > intelect... No it's just a patent on an idea they basically baught from > someone else. Well, if the person that thought of the patented item sold their rights to it... I don't get your point. What does it matter how the rights were acquired? > Lets let all those people in Africa die.... Did you know eddie, thatpeople > are actually dieing? Have you really considered the people that areactually > really dieing? Would you feel the same if it were happening to all your > friends in america? How much would patents matter to you if your bestfreind > were about to die? I'm a cruel man. I'm sorry, I just know that some people are destined to die, you can't save everyone. If someone really wanted to help those people, they would just steal the patent, they do it all the time for movies and what not in China, but you see, there's no money in it. You are welcome to take all your money and send it to those people in Africa. How much have you sent to this point? None? 5%? > Sure the current reality is that more or les money talks in America, butto > say that this is just awesome, and kicks as it indeed the dreamworld... > > as for Russia, yeah Capitalism is really kicking ass there... Capitalism kicked Socialisms ass. If Russia persists they'll get it working. Thanks.

"Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Q%o_6.101962$[email hidden]... > a. read the bill of rights, and realize that the press has aconstitutional > responsibility to serve the public. The press?! Speedvision is not the press. It's an entertainment channel. The press, sheesh... > b. once again the constitution provides the right and the responsibilityof > the people to peacefully (ands arguable not so peacefully) assemble to get > what they need and want. Try that sometime without a permit, you'll see where that gets you. There are all sorts of loopholes, you every hear of loitering? unlawful assembly? etc... > c. Finally and most importantly, the FCC's original charter (or whateverit > was called) stated that for a broadcast outlet to exist and be licensed, > that it MUST serve in good interest of the people. I'd find that charter outdated or your interpretation incorrect. The many adult channels do not serve the good interest of the people according to those on the religious right. And those on the religous left find no use for the religious channels. I believe your interpretation is a bit to literal. > So at least not inn America (and probably more so in some European > counties) can a guy do what he wants with a television station justbecause > he owns it. Not legally, and certainly not morally. Sure, they can, see above. > Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > So you're telling me that a group of people own a channel and can't do > > precisely what they want with it? Why can't they do whatever the market > > will bear with it? If they market will support it being the "BeannieBaby

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Channel" and they want to do that, why can't they? They have no > obligation > > beyond making the shareholders money. > > > > Does anyone know what the ratings are on non-NASCAR racing? > > > > Thanks. > > > > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:1hb_6.100496$[email hidden]... > > > Has everyone forgotten that the press and the media has an obligation

to > > > serve the people? > > > > > > Since when did we all think it's OK for the owners of the media to do > what > > > they want with it... and if people try to say something about it,we're

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > being anti-capitalist ore something. > > > > > > Secondly, since when is some guys right to do what hell he wants with > the > > > media without getting hassled more important than the right of the > people > > to > > > assemble? It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the people to protest and

boycott > if > > > they aren't getting what they want from the media. > > > > > > Frankly Eddie, if your favorite form of racing were F1 and sportscars, > > you > > > wouldn't feel quite the same, so what the hell are you talking about? > > > > > > FWIW, NASCAR has been my favorite form of racing for at least adecade, > > but > > > I get enough of that on all the other channels, is there really 24hours

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > worth of info about nascar, without a bunch of repeats? > > > > > > > > > > > > Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > You correct that I knew nothing about you. > > > > > > > > I agree with you in basic principle, you have a right to cancel your > > > > subscription to Speedvision. It's the threat of boycott against

FOX, > > > NASCAR > > > > and god only knows who else that I'm against. > > > > > > > > FWIW: I really only have time to watch NASCAR these days, so I'mnot > > > > certain how I feel about this. However, I will add that if themarket

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > desires such a channel it's certain to be back. > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:Eg8_6.82957$[email hidden]... > > > > > "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to

give > > you > > > > the > > > > > > viewing you desire. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they ownand > > > change > > > > it > > > > > > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't havethe > > > right > > > > to > > > > > > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probablydon't > > > even > > > > > > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to whichthey

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > are > > > > > > catering. > > > > > > > > > > Eddie, obviously speaking from the point of knowing nothing about > me, > > > > > > > > > > I've been a NASCAR fan since 1970. I have watched almost every > NASCAR > > > > race > > > > > for the past 8 years. I like watching NASCAR Racing. So, point

one > > on > > > > your end...gone. > > > > > > > > > > Speedvision is NOT NASCAR-vision. Now I'll make an assumptionabout > > > > you...do YOU > > > > > watch any other form of racing? If not, all I'll sayis...figures.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > > > > > > > > If you do, you would realize that whether or not they own the > station > > > has > > > > nothing to do with > > > > > what viewers want to see. I bought and paid good money for the > extra > > > > package that has > > > > > Speedvision, I'll be darned if I sit quietly by and let them

change

Quoted text (19 lines)

> it > > > > into NASCAR-vision. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > �� Jan Kohl �� > > > > > SECURITY CONSULTANT > > > > > The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com > > > > > Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > a. read the bill of rights, and realize that the press has a > constitutional > > responsibility to serve the public. > The press?! Speedvision is not the press. It's an entertainment channel. > The press, sheesh... Not as important of a press, but they are sports news, it's not the same thing as make believe entertainment. They are sports press, just like the sports page in your paper. They are reporting on entertiament, not entertaining. Freinds entertains, Entertainment tonight reports on it. Also does FOX get to do what they want with FOX news? Or is that somehow differant? Who decides which news is important? > > b. once again the constitution provides the right and the responsibility > of > > the people to peacefully (ands arguable not so peacefully) assemble toget > > what they need and want. > Try that sometime without a permit, you'll see where that gets you. There > are all sorts of loopholes, you every hear of loitering? unlawfulassembly? > etc... doesn't makle it ok that it happens, and doesn't mean we don't have the right. All you've stated is that the governemnt is infringing on our rights. Therefore it is our responsibility to resecure thjose freedoms.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > c. Finally and most importantly, the FCC's original charter (or whatever > it > > was called) stated that for a broadcast outlet to exist and be licensed, > > that it MUST serve in good interest of the people. > I'd find that charter outdated or your interpretation incorrect. The many > adult channels do not serve the good interest of the people according to > those on the religious right. And those on the religous left find no use > for the religious channels. I believe your interpretation is a bit to > literal.

Well for one thing, pay per veiw and premium exist under slightly differant circumstances, since you have to specifically request those chanels. None the less, if people want to protest porn, or right wing religous programing, good for them. It seems to me that it's your perspective that all us poor people are picking on them defensless rich people becasue we're jealous. If you think it's outdated that the media should actually have to serve the people, then there's nothing I can say to that,except that I disrespectfully disagree. > > So at least not inn America (and probably more so in some European > > counties) can a guy do what he wants with a television station just > because > > he owns it. Not legally, and certainly not morally. > Sure, they can, see above. Depends on the politicaql s;lant of the ciureent government and more importantlythe supreme court. But we also have the right and responibility to boycott... And there is nothing wrong with the people to organise to get what they want.

yeah DAMN unions.They should be happy to get what we give em! Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Eh, I'm not certain, I just don't like the thought of boycotts againstother > products that are produced by the same parent company. Maybe I'm wrong,but

Quoted text (18 lines)

> it bothers me in the same manner as union strikes... > > Thanks. > > "Michael G. Lowery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Eddie Pettit wrote: > > > > > It's the call for boycotting that I'm against... > > > > > > If there's a market for the other forms of racing, they will survive. > > > > > > It's all about money. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > Eddie, > > The thing that I don't understand about your mantra here is that

what > Jan > > proposes IS how the market system is supposed to work. Jan is aconsumer, > he is > > disapproving of how someone is doing business, he is making it clear to > them > > that his money spends elsewhere, and he is asking like-minded people todo

Quoted text (8 lines)

> the > > same. How else are we to flex our muscle? > > > > Michael Lowery > > > > > >

You're not letting them die, your killing them yourself. that are dieing on the act of others... and if they try to do anything about it, that's bad because they're going to hurt someone's intellectual property rights. As for the guy who sold the rights, my point is why does a company deserve the rights just because they can afford them? Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Rep_6.102019$[email hidden]... > > Intelectual property, shouldn't that belong to the guy with the actual > > intelect... No it's just a patent on an idea they basically baught from > > someone else. > > Well, if the person that thought of the patented item sold their rights to > it... I don't get your point. What does it matter how the rights were > acquired? > > > Lets let all those people in Africa die.... Did you know eddie, that > people > > are actually dieing? Have you really considered the people that are > actually > > really dieing? Would you feel the same if it were happening to all your > > friends in america? How much would patents matter to you if your best > freind > > were about to die? > > I'm a cruel man. I'm sorry, I just know that some people are destined to > die, you can't save everyone. If someone really wanted to help those > people, they would just steal the patent, they do it all the time for

movies > and what not in China, but you see, there's no money in it. You arewelcome > to take all your money and send it to those people in Africa. How muchhave

Quoted text (14 lines)

> you sent to this point? None? 5%? > > > Sure the current reality is that more or les money talks in America, but > to > > say that this is just awesome, and kicks as it indeed the dreamworld... > > > > as for Russia, yeah Capitalism is really kicking ass there... > > Capitalism kicked Socialisms ass. If Russia persists they'll get it > working. > > Thanks. > >

"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Q%o_6.101962$[email hidden]... > > a. read the bill of rights, and realize that the press has a > constitutional > > responsibility to serve the public. > > The press?! Speedvision is not the press. It's an entertainment channel. > The press, sheesh...

Factual reporting of sporting events is just "entertainment"? I mean I realise it's not current affairs or who's nobbing who in the oval office, but it's still factual broadcasting. Christ, most of the newspapers in the UK are basically "entertainment", they're certainly short of facts, so in my perspective, eg, Eurosport is more like the press than the newspapers, or most "news" programmes. cheers John

"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Eh, I'm not certain, I just don't like the thought of boycotts againstother > products that are produced by the same parent company. Maybe I'm wrong,but > it bothers me in the same manner as union strikes... > > Thanks. So, for example, if I objected to National Westminster Bank's involvement in financing animal testing laboratories, then I would be morally wrong, as a concerned consumer, to not use their e-banking service? (for the record I don't have such objections). There are, in my opinion, a hundred other reasons to boycott anything that Fox has had their fingers in, than the acquisition and brand shifting of a sports news channel. Boycotting all products of a parent company is the only way to make your power as a consumer felt. Many international companies "hide" behind the activities of subsidiaries, by keeping them at arms length, as it were- they're happy to rake in the cash, but are nervous of direct association. It's Jan's money, neither you, not Fox have got any damn right to tell him what he can and can't do with it. He has no power other than his influence with other people who sympathise with him, and the cash in his wallet. If enough people acted that way, there would be less "maximum profit at any cost" behaviour in business, and more "acceptable and sustainable medium and long term profit with more beneficial public perception". have fun in three years when the only motorsports available is NASCAR on TV. cheers John

What incentive would anyone have to invent something if they couldn't make money from it? Why shouldn't the guy that put all the time into the patented item get paid for it? Why shouldn't a company that allowed somebody the resources that get put into a patented item expect to make lots of money from it? People don't invent things for the good of man despite what you'd like to think... If you take all incentive away, you'll see the money put into research going elsewhere. You still haven't stated how much of your wealth you give to Africa. Thanks. "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:e4q_6.102120$[email hidden]... > You're not letting them die, your killing them yourself. that are dieingon

Quoted text (14 lines)

> the act of others... and if they try to do anything about it, that's bad > because they're going to hurt someone's intellectual property rights. > > As for the guy who sold the rights, my point is why does a company deserve > the rights just because they can afford them? > > > Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:Rep_6.102019$[email hidden]... > > > Intelectual property, shouldn't that belong to the guy with the actual > > > intelect... No it's just a patent on an idea they basically baught

from > > > someone else. > > > > Well, if the person that thought of the patented item sold their rightsto

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > it... I don't get your point. What does it matter how the rights were > > acquired? > > > > > Lets let all those people in Africa die.... Did you know eddie, that > > people > > > are actually dieing? Have you really considered the people that are > > actually > > > really dieing? Would you feel the same if it were happening to all

your > > > friends in america? How much would patents matter to you if your best > > freind > > > were about to die? > > > > I'm a cruel man. I'm sorry, I just know that some people are destinedto

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > die, you can't save everyone. If someone really wanted to help those > > people, they would just steal the patent, they do it all the time for > movies > > and what not in China, but you see, there's no money in it. You are > welcome > > to take all your money and send it to those people in Africa. How much > have > > you sent to this point? None? 5%? > > > > > Sure the current reality is that more or les money talks in America,

but > > to > > > say that this is just awesome, and kicks as it indeed thedreamworld...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > > > > as for Russia, yeah Capitalism is really kicking ass there... > > > > Capitalism kicked Socialisms ass. If Russia persists they'll get it > > working. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > >

"Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:K0q_6.102114$[email hidden]... > Also does FOX get to do what they want with FOX news? Or is that somehow > differant? Who decides which news is important? Yes, FOX gets to do what they want with their news, who's to tell them otherwise? The gov't tells them what to report? The Producer of the news typically decides what's important. > If you think it's outdated that the media should actually have to servethe > people, then there's nothing I can say to that,except that Idisrespectfully > disagree. Agreed, thanks.

Here's one ymenard should like if he's reading this still :) "If money's all you care about then that's what you'll get" FWIW none of the good stuff got invented for profit, they were stumbled upon accidentally. And who says all these important inventions are more important than people living happy lives? So what if the internet never gets invented, who gives a damn, if we never knew we were missing it, if that ,meant everyone was being taken care of. What company do you work for btw.? and what have I done for Africa lately? Well since I don't own a corporation I can't do that much economically, but I have voted for people who won't overtly screw them over as much as the other guy, and I'm not withholding anything that could help them. Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > What incentive would anyone have to invent something if they couldn't make > money from it? Why shouldn't the guy that put all the time into the > patented item get paid for it? Why shouldn't a company that allowed > somebody the resources that get put into a patented item expect to makelots > of money from it? People don't invent things for the good of man despite > what you'd like to think... If you take all incentive away, you'll seethe

Quoted text (14 lines)

> money put into research going elsewhere. > > You still haven't stated how much of your wealth you give to Africa. > > Thanks. > > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:e4q_6.102120$[email hidden]... > > You're not letting them die, your killing them yourself. that are dieing > on > > the act of others... and if they try to do anything about it, that's bad > > because they're going to hurt someone's intellectual property rights. > > > > As for the guy who sold the rights, my point is why does a company

deserve

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > the rights just because they can afford them? > > > > > > Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:Rep_6.102019$[email hidden]... > > > > Intelectual property, shouldn't that belong to the guy with the

actual > > > > intelect... No it's just a patent on an idea they basically baught > from > > > > someone else. > > > > > > Well, if the person that thought of the patented item sold theirrights > to > > > it... I don't get your point. What does it matter how the rightswere

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > > acquired? > > > > > > > Lets let all those people in Africa die.... Did you know eddie, that > > > people > > > > are actually dieing? Have you really considered the people that are > > > actually > > > > really dieing? Would you feel the same if it were happening to all > your > > > > friends in america? How much would patents matter to you if your

best

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > freind > > > > were about to die? > > > > > > I'm a cruel man. I'm sorry, I just know that some people are destined > to > > > die, you can't save everyone. If someone really wanted to help those > > > people, they would just steal the patent, they do it all the time for > > movies > > > and what not in China, but you see, there's no money in it. You are > > welcome > > > to take all your money and send it to those people in Africa. How

much

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > have > > > you sent to this point? None? 5%? > > > > > > > Sure the current reality is that more or les money talks in America, > but > > > to > > > > say that this is just awesome, and kicks as it indeed the > dreamworld... > > > > > > > > as for Russia, yeah Capitalism is really kicking ass there... > > > > > > Capitalism kicked Socialisms ass. If Russia persists they'll get it > > > working. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > >

Eddie, Please forgive Frank... he just 'aint right' Let's just say his favorite color is 'red' ;) LOL -- Scott B. Husted ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Well, I don't know about you, but I grew up in a poor family and we have > worked our way up to owning our own business. If I wanted to sell it and > some people came along and talked about boycotting in an attempt to ruin > said sale or in an attempt to threaten my living, I'd certainly be upset. > > As for learning with age, I'm over halfway through my life expectancy now > and believe I know how things work. Everything revolves around the mighty > $, if you don't think so, I simply suggest you look around. Generally, > people only do things for money, take charities for example, did you know > that organizations like the FOP, United Way, etc, spend less than 40% of > their donations to actually help people or do what they say they will? Most > are far less. > > FTR, I have been involved with Fortune 500 companies and have seen all sides > of the corporate coin. The large corporations are out of control, I prefer > operating a small family run business where you can actually provide > customer support and be proud of the product that you provide > > Thanks. > > "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:jAf_6.26580$[email hidden]... > > >"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote > > > Wow, it's stupid to think that Speedvision exists to make money? > > > > > > You must be one of those corporate spoiled brat, my son... You will learn > > with age to enjoy the small time left before you die, like everybody. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > > -- May the Downforce be with you... > > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > > > > > > >

Amazing "Eddie Pettit" about 24 posts in 24hrs!! And you say you own your own business? Who does the work? Your so called "employees in the trenches are easily replaceable"? Just amazing Thom_j. :-)

Umm.. actually. I could do without the F1 events. I see enough parades on Thanksgiving and Christmas ;P <slips into flame retardent suit> -- Scott B. Husted ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:NV8_6.83158$[email hidden]... > "Doug Justice" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > They're not going to show 24 hours of Nascar. They're going to keep F1 and > > many of the other types of racing that are shown. What they will get rid of, > > I hope, are the boat races, the 6 hours straight of motorbikes, and the > > infomercials :-) > > > > I would much rather see other races that are sanctioned by Nascar (my local > > dirt track happens to be one of many) then those types of programs. This may > > not appeal to you, but to the majority I think it would be welcomed. And the > > majority is all the really counts when dollars are involved. > > Doug, I don't watch those either, but let me give you several examples of direct competition > against NASCAR-sanctioned events. > > American LeMans Series. As a road racing series, it competes directly against NASCAR's > Grand American. Granted, ALMS is more factory prototypes than GA, but I rather doubt they > would show ALMS events on a NASCAR-sanctioned channel. > > Trans Am. Several Trans Am events run exactly at the same time as NASCAR-events. > Either they will (A tape-delay it and show it later, or B) not show it at all. And what if > T/A starts to gain ground on viewer audience? > > 24 hours of LeMans. Several NASCAR shows coincide directly with this program. > A BGN race, as well as qualifying and practice for the WC event. Do you think they > will show the 24 hours of Le Mans vs these events? What did I watch? The BGN > race during that part of the day...but I'm sure many were tuned into the 24 hours..and > I certainly DIDN'T watch qual or practice in favor of LeMans... > > F1. Several Formula 1 events coincide with NASCAR events, mostly the ones over > on this hemisphere, of course. F1 or NASCAR on NASCAR-vision? > > I'm rather astounded that the two responses thus far have been negative...I thought most > people on RAS were rather open about all forms of racing, but maybe I was wrong. > Or, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough...I'm not opposed to a NASCAR channel, > I'm opposed to turning **Speedvision** into a NASCAR channel. > > Cheers! > > > -- > �� Jan Kohl �� > SECURITY CONSULTANT > The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com > Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com > >

Hee-Haw? Hmm... Well I guess you would be the guy to go to for a show that has a jack-ass at the beginning of it. (or the "end" of it). -- Scott B. Husted ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c79_6.33$[email hidden]... > > "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give you the > > viewing you desire. ;-) > > > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and change > it > > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have the right > to > > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don't even > > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are > > catering. > > > > Thanks. > > 41 million? You might be way off on your numbers. > http://www.sportsline.com/u/wire/stories/0,1169,3621187_6,00.html > Besides, I think we already have a NASCAR channel. It's the same one that > shows Hee-Haw. > > David G Fisher >

Actually... it doesn't mean a damn thing if you, I, or anyone else in here turns it on or off unless we have a ratings box hooked up to our TV. <VBG> -- Scott B. Husted ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:nDe_6.26409$[email hidden]... > >"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote > > You want to keep SV the channel that it is? Buy it. If you can buy it > you > > can program as you see fit. That's my point. Sure, current viewers can > > complain and they should, but threatening boycotts... > > > Uhhhh, TV is a medium for the viewers primarily. Ratings decide, only that. > Advertising is directly related to the ratings. If I don't watch SV > anymore, is the way a simple viewer shows it's disagreement with the > business decision a channel may take. > > You are defending a dead horse. It's almost close to DGF's level. > > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >

Like there is a usenet group that you don't troll!! =P -- Scott B. Husted ICQ# 4395450 http://www.Husted.cc "ymenard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:dEo_6.30413$[email hidden]... > "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote > > You can have your opinion and express it and I can have mine and express > it. > > If you expect me not express views that don't agree with you, then I > suggest > > that you filter my posts. > > > And if you aren't satisfied by your current Usenet experience, you can > always start one by yourself <snickers> > > > > > > -- > -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> > -- May the Downforce be with you... > -- http://www.ymenard.com/ > -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimato Dominguez > Corporation - helping America into the New World... > > >

It shows Dukes of Hazzard a lot too. DGF "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hee-Haw? Hmm... Well I guess you would be the guy to go to for a showthat

Quoted text (17 lines)

> has a jack-ass at the beginning of it. (or the "end" of it). > > -- > Scott B. Husted > ICQ# 4395450 > http://www.Husted.cc > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:c79_6.33$[email hidden]... > > > > "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Looks like you might be buying your own cable station soon to give you > the > > > viewing you desire. ;-) > > > > > > I love it when a guy/company wants to take something they own and

change > > it > > > to their liking people fly off the handle like they don't have theright > > to > > > do so. I just can't understand that thinking. You probably don'teven

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > watch NASCAR so you aren't one of the 41M households to which they are > > > catering. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > 41 million? You might be way off on your numbers. > > http://www.sportsline.com/u/wire/stories/0,1169,3621187_6,00.html > > Besides, I think we already have a NASCAR channel. It's the same one

that > > shows Hee-Haw. > > > > David G Fisher > > > >

Well, let me see. This could get complicated, I posted 24 times in 24 hours. I can't imagine reading the posts and replying taking any longer than 2 minutes per post. So in a 24 hour period, I've wasted less than an hour. Hm. If it's any consolation, I didn't take lunch today or my morning or afternoon break. Additionally I started at 8:15 even though my official start time is 9:00. I closed at 5:00 yet answered the phones at least 4 additional times. I did stop to eat, that took about an hour. And I have about an hours worth of worth to complete, assuming that I actually do it today. I think I can afford to waste that 1 hour as I see fit. Oh, tomorrow I coach T-ball between 6 and 7, that'll cut into my work time... As you can see above, most management is far more responsible for the work or company succeeding than most front line people understand. Their day doesn't just begin at a certain time and end at another, it's ongoing, and in most cases they are on salary, so they don't even get anything beyond their basic rate other than a bonus if they are lucky... Thanks. "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VQs_6.1480$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Amazing "Eddie Pettit" about 24 posts in 24hrs!! And you say you own > your own business? Who does the work? Your so called "employees in > the trenches are easily replaceable"? > Just amazing Thom_j. :-) > > > >

> and what have I done for Africa lately? Well since I don't own acorporation > I can't do that much economically, but I have voted for people who won't > overtly screw them over as much as the other guy, and I'm not withholding > anything that could help them. Oh, so you've basically done nothing for Africa, no donations, no working at a mission, nothing... Why don't you take some of your profits, we all have them individuals and corporations, and send it to Africa. If you did it maybe everyone else would do it and you could make a difference. Until then quit advocating the theft of intellectual property for the good of man because you won't even donate 5% of your profit for the good of man... Thanks.

Heh. That's a good one. Thanks. "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Umm.. actually. I could do without the F1 events. I see enough paradeson

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Thanksgiving and Christmas ;P > > <slips into flame retardent suit> > > -- > Scott B. Husted > ICQ# 4395450 > http://www.Husted.cc > > > "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:NV8_6.83158$[email hidden]... > > "Doug Justice" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > They're not going to show 24 hours of Nascar. They're going to keep F1 > and > > > many of the other types of racing that are shown. What they will get

rid > of, > > > I hope, are the boat races, the 6 hours straight of motorbikes, andthe > > > infomercials :-) > > > > > > I would much rather see other races that are sanctioned by Nascar (my > local > > > dirt track happens to be one of many) then those types of programs.This > may > > > not appeal to you, but to the majority I think it would be welcomed.And > the > > > majority is all the really counts when dollars are involved. > > > > Doug, I don't watch those either, but let me give you several examplesof

Quoted text (12 lines)

> direct competition > > against NASCAR-sanctioned events. > > > > American LeMans Series. As a road racing series, it competes directly > against NASCAR's > > Grand American. Granted, ALMS is more factory prototypes than GA, but I > rather doubt they > > would show ALMS events on a NASCAR-sanctioned channel. > > > > Trans Am. Several Trans Am events run exactly at the same time as > NASCAR-events. > > Either they will (A tape-delay it and show it later, or B) not show it

at

Quoted text (8 lines)

> all. And what if > > T/A starts to gain ground on viewer audience? > > > > 24 hours of LeMans. Several NASCAR shows coincide directly with this > program. > > A BGN race, as well as qualifying and practice for the WC event. Do you > think they > > will show the 24 hours of Le Mans vs these events? What did I watch?

The > BGN > > race during that part of the day...but I'm sure many were tuned into the > 24 hours..and > > I certainly DIDN'T watch qual or practice in favor of LeMans... > > > > F1. Several Formula 1 events coincide with NASCAR events, mostly theones > over > > on this hemisphere, of course. F1 or NASCAR on NASCAR-vision? > > > > I'm rather astounded that the two responses thus far have been > negative...I thought most > > people on RAS were rather open about all forms of racing, but maybe Iwas > wrong. > > Or, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough...I'm not opposed to aNASCAR

Quoted text (15 lines)

> channel, > > I'm opposed to turning **Speedvision** into a NASCAR channel. > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > -- > > �� Jan Kohl �� > > SECURITY CONSULTANT > > The Pits - http://www.theuspits.com > > Castle Graphics - http://www.castlegraphics.com > > > > > >

Things that make you say Hmmm? again.. DGF seems to know too much about Hee-Haw & the Dukes of Hazzard .. Hmmmm? "David G Fisher" wrote: | It shows Dukes of Hazzard a lot too. | DGF

Ur posts go on during the 24hr period almost every 1/2hr.. U do the math on time spent reading and re:ing kiddo! :o)~ btw: it looks like it's troll time for the trollmeter!! hahahaha "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... | Well, let me see. This could get complicated, I posted 24 times in 24 | hours. I can't imagine reading the posts and replying taking any longer | than 2 minutes per post. So in a 24 hour period, I've wasted less than an | hour. Hm. If it's any consolation, I didn't take lunch today or mymorning | or afternoon break. Additionally I started at 8:15 even though myofficial

Quoted text (13 lines)

| start time is 9:00. I closed at 5:00 yet answered the phones at least 4 | additional times. I did stop to eat, that took about an hour. And I have | about an hours worth of worth to complete, assuming that I actually do it | today. I think I can afford to waste that 1 hour as I see fit. Oh, | tomorrow I coach T-ball between 6 and 7, that'll cut into my work time... | | As you can see above, most management is far more responsible for the work | or company succeeding than most front line people understand. Their day | doesn't just begin at a certain time and end at another, it's ongoing, and | in most cases they are on salary, so they don't even get anything beyond | their basic rate other than a bonus if they are lucky... | | Thanks.

Three point is that I don't do anything to overtly harm people, the drug companies do. It's a matter of what I'm NOT doing, not what I am doing. Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > and what have I done for Africa lately? Well since I don't own a > corporation > > I can't do that much economically, but I have voted for people who won't > > overtly screw them over as much as the other guy, and I'm notwithholding > > anything that could help them. > > Oh, so you've basically done nothing for Africa, no donations, no workingat > a mission, nothing... Why don't you take some of your profits, we allhave > them individuals and corporations, and send it to Africa. If you did it > maybe everyone else would do it and you could make a difference. Untilthen

Quoted text (7 lines)

> quit advocating the theft of intellectual property for the good of man > because you won't even donate 5% of your profit for the good of man... > > Thanks. > > >

In article <[email hidden]>, "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> writes: >You want to keep SV the channel that it is? Buy it. If you can buy it you >can program as you see fit. That's my point. Sure, current viewers can >complain and they should, but threatening boycotts... Why not? Say the only reason you bought the Speedvision package was to see the racing events they currently televise. If they eliminated that, would you REALLY cheerfully continue to give them your money? If you have enough money to keep paying for something you no longer care about, send some MY way... Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

The drug companies harm people by expecting to make a profit... Nice socialist ideals... You want someone else to give their money away, but not your money... By the same token, you, by withholding a portion of your profits from Africa, are harming Africa as much as the Drug Company not providing them with a portion of their profits. Thanks. "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mBv_6.103520$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Three point is that I don't do anything to overtly harm people, the drug > companies do. > > It's a matter of what I'm NOT doing, not what I am doing. > > > Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > and what have I done for Africa lately? Well since I don't own a > > corporation > > > I can't do that much economically, but I have voted for people who

won't > > > overtly screw them over as much as the other guy, and I'm not > withholding > > > anything that could help them. > > > > Oh, so you've basically done nothing for Africa, no donations, noworking

Quoted text (15 lines)

> at > > a mission, nothing... Why don't you take some of your profits, we all > have > > them individuals and corporations, and send it to Africa. If you did it > > maybe everyone else would do it and you could make a difference. Until > then > > quit advocating the theft of intellectual property for the good of man > > because you won't even donate 5% of your profit for the good of man... > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > >

Phew!!! A bit "nebulas" dont ya think?? Damm..... "Eddie Pettit" wrote: | The drug companies harm people by expecting to make a profit... Nice | socialist ideals... You want someone else to give their money away, butnot

Quoted text (7 lines)

| your money... | | By the same token, you, by withholding a portion of your profits from | Africa, are harming Africa as much as the Drug Company not providing them | with a portion of their profits. | | Thanks.

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001

In article <[email hidden]>, "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>The drug companies harm people by expecting to make a profit... Nice >socialist ideals... You want someone else to give their money away, but not >your money... > >By the same token, you, by withholding a portion of your profits from >Africa, are harming Africa as much as the Drug Company not providing them >with a portion of their profits.

I must have missed a message or 2(hundred). How did we get from Speedvision's coverage to drug companies??? Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

EldredP wrote: > > I must have missed a message or 2(hundred). How did we get from Speedvision's > coverage to drug companies??? ROTFLMAO! Eldred, you don't wanna *know*! <g> -- Fester

Hey Eldred.. He is on them Shhhhhhh!!! :-) "EldredP" wrote: | I must have missed a message or 2(hundred). How did we get fromSpeedvision's | coverage to drug companies??? | | Eldred --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001

Actually, I wasn't the one that turned the conversation in that direction, but I did continue it. Thanks. "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1OK_6.463$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Hey Eldred.. He is on them Shhhhhhh!!! :-) > > "EldredP" wrote: > | I must have missed a message or 2(hundred). How did we get from > Speedvision's > | coverage to drug companies??? > | > | Eldred > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001 > >

I think we can clearly see by the size of this thread that what most Racing Fans want is MORE coverage, which includes not only differernt series but sustained coverage at the paticular events. And while some of you may disagree with Jan's methods...you should if you are an American viewer receiving Speedvision let them know if you appreciate the current coverage. Perhaps we should be letting FOX know rather than Speedvision or even both.. And finally about the lawnmower racing...yeah it was a cheap publicity stunt for riding mower manufactuers, but I seem to recall a certain narrowly focused cable channel that was never predicted to suceed because they had to fill their off hours with crap like world ping pong. Of course many of you might be familiar with ESPN and it's other affiliate chanels these days...but they too had limited means in their first years. dave henrie "Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (26 lines)

> Actually, I wasn't the one that turned the conversation in that direction, > but I did continue it. > > Thanks. > > "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:1OK_6.463$[email hidden]... > > Hey Eldred.. He is on them Shhhhhhh!!! :-) > > > > "EldredP" wrote: > > | I must have missed a message or 2(hundred). How did we get from > > Speedvision's > > | coverage to drug companies??? > > | > > | Eldred > > > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001 > > > > > >

I knew you'd reply to this!! I just knew it!! hahahaha :-) "Eddie Pettit" wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

| Actually, I wasn't the one that turned the conversation in that direction, | but I did continue it. | Thanks. | | "Thom j."wrote: | > Hey Eldred.. He is on them Shhhhhhh!!! :-) | > | > "EldredP" wrote: | > | I must have missed a message or 2(hundred). How did we get from | > Speedvision's | > | coverage to drug companies??? | > | | > | Eldred

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001

Not if sharing any of my "profits" would only have a negligible effect. and the Drug Companies would still make plenty of profit based on their sales in America and the west. They could afford to provide 3rd world aide. Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The drug companies harm people by expecting to make a profit... Nice > socialist ideals... You want someone else to give their money away, butnot

Quoted text (32 lines)

> your money... > > By the same token, you, by withholding a portion of your profits from > Africa, are harming Africa as much as the Drug Company not providing them > with a portion of their profits. > > Thanks. > > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:mBv_6.103520$[email hidden]... > > Three point is that I don't do anything to overtly harm people, the drug > > companies do. > > > > It's a matter of what I'm NOT doing, not what I am doing. > > > > > > Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > and what have I done for Africa lately? Well since I don't own a > > > corporation > > > > I can't do that much economically, but I have voted for people who > won't > > > > overtly screw them over as much as the other guy, and I'm not > > withholding > > > > anything that could help them. > > > > > > Oh, so you've basically done nothing for Africa, no donations, no > working > > at > > > a mission, nothing... Why don't you take some of your profits, we all > > have > > > them individuals and corporations, and send it to Africa. If you did

it > > > maybe everyone else would do it and you could make a difference.Until

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > then > > > quit advocating the theft of intellectual property for the good of man > > > because you won't even donate 5% of your profit for the good of man... > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Then you were correct. Thanks. "Thom j." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8vN_6.768$[email hidden]... > I knew you'd reply to this!! I just knew it!! hahahaha :-) > > "Eddie Pettit" wrote: > | Actually, I wasn't the one that turned the conversation in thatdirection,

Quoted text (21 lines)

> | but I did continue it. > | Thanks. > | > | "Thom j."wrote: > | > Hey Eldred.. He is on them Shhhhhhh!!! :-) > | > > | > "EldredP" wrote: > | > | I must have missed a message or 2(hundred). How did we get from > | > Speedvision's > | > | coverage to drug companies??? > | > | > | > | Eldred > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/2001 > >

But then who will televise Le Mans, Sebring, AMA Supersport/Superbike, WSB, FIA GP250/500, F1, WRC, F2000, SCCA Pro Rally, That Lawn Tractor Racing Series Thing (tm) -- Yowza!, "One More Time" (or something like that) with Waltrip, Benson, Shrader, and Wallace - missing Bestwick and the original TWINR show, SportPilot, Hooter's Pro Cup (who drives that Lucas Oil car? He's pretty good), Dream Car Garage, oh ferchrissakes you get the picture. Jeez, even I don't want 24/7 Nascar. -- Philip D'Amato [email hidden] "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ho7_6.82559$[email hidden]... > my letter, which was sent to these people: [email hidden]; [email hidden]; [email hidden] > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Please forward this to Fox/NASCAR executives: > > quote from Charlotte Business Journal: > "The idea for a NASCAR network began two years ago, when the stock-car sanctioning body completed a $2.8 billion > broadcast contract with Fox and NBC/Turner. That deal began this year. With viewership at an all-time high, Fox and > NASCAR executives have again turned their attention to starting a cable channel. The plan is to convert Speedvision, an > existing cable network reaching 41 million households, to the NASCAR Channel." > > Let me give you all a hint. You mess with Speedvision, who shows greatly varied racing events besides NASCAR Racing, > and I will boycott both FOX and "NASCAR-Vision", and ask others to do the same. We DON'T want a good racing channel > turned into a single race channel, and I'll be damned if I'm going to watch it. I'll have the cable package (which I > got just BECAUSE of Speedvision) removed. > > You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. Don't mess up a good format that shows alot more varied racing > than just NASCAR. And don't tell me that you'll host other racing events on there...I can bet my bottom dollar that > ANYTHING that would compete against NASCAR-owned series will be dropped in favor of NASCAR sanctioned events. > > Jan Kohl > >

All I can say is that I am sooooo jealous of those who can get SV. No chance of getting it here in Australia.... btw, I've looked at the SV programming and am truly shocked and dismayed that such an awesome channel is not available to me. It'd be a damn shame for it to be turned to 100% nascar, that's for sure. I'm sure there'd be room for two channels, yeah? Rafe Mc On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:45:49 GMT, "Jan Kohl" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

>my letter, which was sent to these people: [email hidden]; [email hidden]; [email hidden] >------------------------------------------------------ > >Please forward this to Fox/NASCAR executives: > >quote from Charlotte Business Journal: >"The idea for a NASCAR network began two years ago, when the stock-car sanctioning body completed a $2.8 billion >broadcast contract with Fox and NBC/Turner. That deal began this year. With viewership at an all-time high, Fox and >NASCAR executives have again turned their attention to starting a cable channel. The plan is to convert Speedvision, an >existing cable network reaching 41 million households, to the NASCAR Channel." > >Let me give you all a hint. You mess with Speedvision, who shows greatly varied racing events besides NASCAR Racing, >and I will boycott both FOX and "NASCAR-Vision", and ask others to do the same. We DON'T want a good racing channel >turned into a single race channel, and I'll be damned if I'm going to watch it. I'll have the cable package (which I >got just BECAUSE of Speedvision) removed. > >You want a NASCAR channel, get your own damn channel. Don't mess up a good format that shows alot more varied racing >than just NASCAR. And don't tell me that you'll host other racing events on there...I can bet my bottom dollar that >ANYTHING that would compete against NASCAR-owned series will be dropped in favor of NASCAR sanctioned events. > >Jan Kohl >

.. "They can't possibly show NASCAR 24/7, can they?" .. I was successfully able to hack into FOX-SPORTS exec's computers, and discovered a sample of the proposed NASCAR-TV schedule. It looks fairly interesting, to tell you the truth.. ---------------------------- 12:00am-3:00am: "The NASCAR STORE" - home shopping at its finest. This week featuring "exclusive" Dale Earnhardt memorabilia. 3:00-5:00am: Non-NASCAR Race Feature (today's Feature: Monaco F1 GP) (tape delayed) 5:00-7:00am: Infomercials 7:30-8:00am: NASCAR NEWS (live Fri, Sat, Sun, Mon; replay every Tue, Wed, Thu) 8:00-10:30am: NASCAR RACE-RECAP (highlights of the weekends NASCAR events) 10:30-11:00am: The NASCAR CHEF: featured NASCAR drivers show you their favourite kitchen creations. This week Robby Gordon shows how he creates his world-famous "Nacho & Dip a la Gordon" 11:00-12:00pm: Victory Circle - A look back at memorable NASCAR races 12:00-12:30pm: NASCAR University - reading & 'riting tips, from beginner to advanced skill levels. 12:30-1:00pm: NASCAR NEWS (repeat, see 7am) 1:00-2:00pm: Legends of Stock Car Racing 2:00-2:30pm: The Man Behind the Helmet - NASCAR personalities share a look into their lives away from the track. 2:30-3:00pm: NASCAR Track Talk - NASCAR drivers discuss this week's track(s), set-ups, race expectations, history. Features a viewer call-in segment. 3:00-3:30pm: NASCAR-TOON - (children) An evil race engineer conspires to put star driver Chip Dented out of the race so his son/brother can take his seat 3:30-4:00pm: NASCAR Hunter - NASCAR personalities take the cameras with them on hunting trips and share their favourite hunting tips & stories. 4:00-4:30pm: NASCAR-TOON - (children) Star driver Chip Dented is abducted by aliens and must return to Earth by Sunday afternoon, in time for the big race. 4:30-6:00pm: "The NASCAR STORE" - home shopping at its finest. This week featuring "exclusive" Dale Earnhardt memorabilia. 6:00-8:00pm: NASCAR REPLAY - complete replay of a featured NASCAR broadcast. Today: last weekend's Busch-North race at Bristol 8:00-9:00pm: Daytona, 32114 - the teens deal with the suicide of a classmate. Buck finally asks Dolly on a date. JimBob has a run-in with a rival driver. 9:00-9:30pm: NASCAR Feud - (gameshow) Celebrity NASCAR crew members try to out-guess the contestants. Hosted by Dick Trickle. 9:30-10:00pm: NASCARmedian - NASCAR personalities try stand-up comedy. At the end of each show, viewers may call-in & vote for the funniest performer. 10:00-10:30pm: NASCAR Mechanic - NASCAR race mechanics share their experience with automotive tips 10:30-11:00pm: NASCAR University - Language & social skills for the Redneck, beginner to advanced skill levels. 11:00-12:00pm: Not-the-NASCAR-News (courtesy of ESPN1) - News from around the Non-NASCAR racing world. ---------------------------- Well, you can't say it doesn't have a bit of something to please everyone, can you? Funny though why they would put the 'NASCAR Hunter' smack-dab in the middle of the two children's cartoons. I think I'm going to write a letter to complain! R. Hashana

"Ross Hashana" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:vV1%6.33560$Mb7.1065622 @brie.direct.ca: > I was successfully able to hack into FOX-SPORTS exec's computers, and > discovered a sample of the proposed NASCAR-TV schedule. It looks fairly > interesting, to tell you the truth.. What, no springer? Z. -- Please remove my_pants when replying by email.

In article <vV1%6.33560$[email hidden]>, "Ross Hashana" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>.. "They can't possibly show NASCAR 24/7, can they?" .. >I was successfully able to hack into FOX-SPORTS exec's computers, and >discovered a sample of the proposed NASCAR-TV schedule. It looks fairly >interesting, to tell you the truth.. > > ---------------------------- >12:00am-3:00am: "The NASCAR STORE" - home shopping at its finest. > This week featuring "exclusive" Dale Earnhardt memorabilia. >3:00-5:00am: Non-NASCAR Race Feature (today's Feature: Monaco F1 GP) > (tape delayed) >5:00-7:00am: Infomercials >7:30-8:00am: NASCAR NEWS (live Fri, Sat, Sun, Mon; replay every > Tue, Wed, Thu)

Cute...<g> Eldred -- Dale Earnhardt, Sr. R.I.P. 1951-2001 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett F1 hcp. +16.36...Monster +366.59... Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

So the answer to my question is, "No, I haven't sent any money to Africa, but I do believe the rich (read as: Drug Companies) should be forced to give up intellectual property rights, profit, etc to care for those that can't/won't care for themselves.". These people have governments that have enough money to wage war, they can certainly care for their people if they desire. If they don't desire to care for them, why should we? Why should we force our companies to do so? I know that if I was in charge of a Drug Company and I was forced to 'give away' anything, I'd just raise the rates on those that currently pay, my profitability wouldn't suffer a bit. If I wasn't allowed to raise my rates, I just wouldn't do it (see: US v MS). Plenty of profit?! Who are you to decide what plenty of profit is? You don't make 'enough' profits, yet you want to take 'profits' from those you imagine make 'enough'. I suggest that you do something that would allow you to make 'enough' profits and then spend your profits to care for those in third world countries. Another thing you could do is donate 15% of your 'profit' to Africa in the hopes that your example will get others to do the same. I'm certain there's people in your own neighborhood that you could help, yet you want to help Africa. I just don't understand 'take from the rich and give to the poor' or 'help the third world over helping my neighbor'. I'd like to let this die, but... Thanks. "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> > Not if sharing any of my "profits" would only have a negligible effect. > > and the Drug Companies would still make plenty of profit based on their > sales in America and the west. They could afford to provide 3rd worldaide.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > The drug companies harm people by expecting to make a profit... Nice > > socialist ideals... You want someone else to give their money away, but > not > > your money... > > > > By the same token, you, by withholding a portion of your profits from > > Africa, are harming Africa as much as the Drug Company not providing

them

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > with a portion of their profits. > > > > Thanks. > > > > "Kai Fuller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:mBv_6.103520$[email hidden]... > > > Three point is that I don't do anything to overtly harm people, the

drug

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > > companies do. > > > > > > It's a matter of what I'm NOT doing, not what I am doing. > > > > > > > > > Eddie Pettit <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > and what have I done for Africa lately? Well since I don't own a > > > > corporation > > > > > I can't do that much economically, but I have voted for people who > > won't > > > > > overtly screw them over as much as the other guy, and I'm not > > > withholding > > > > > anything that could help them. > > > > > > > > Oh, so you've basically done nothing for Africa, no donations, no > > working > > > at > > > > a mission, nothing... Why don't you take some of your profits, we

all > > > have > > > > them individuals and corporations, and send it to Africa. If youdid > it > > > > maybe everyone else would do it and you could make a difference. > Until > > > then > > > > quit advocating the theft of intellectual property for the good ofman > > > > because you won't even donate 5% of your profit for the good ofman...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Kai Fuller wrote: > > Not if sharing any of my "profits" would only have a negligible effect. > and the Drug Companies would still make plenty of profit based on their > sales in America and the west. Took the words right out of my mouth Kai. Remember, people like this guy don't believe in "take from the rich & give to the poor". They believe in "take from the poor & give to the rich". People like him are what Richard Stallman would term (rightfully) as a parasite upon society. Before capitalism can evolve to the next level, Big Business is going to have to come to the understanding that undue (excessive & unjust) profits only act as a drain upon the greater economy. Beyond a resonable point, the excessive profit margin takes away income from the market that would otherwise be spent on other goods & services which would serve to expand the economy. Another saying I've heard before that I found amusing is: "The rich steal from & exploit the poor, the middle class looks the other way because they hope to be rich themselves one day". But he still doesn't understand why the label "Capitalist" is an insult. He speaks without letting his heart listen to his very own (mean-spirited)words... -- Fester

So neither of you have done anything to help the people in Africa other than promote taking from the rich, that earned it, to give to the poor, that haven't... See if just you and the other bleeding heart would just share your profits rather than your opinions, maybe a few more families could have eaten tonight... Oh, your profits are meaningless, seems to me if you want to help, feeding 2 families for 1 night, might actually help... You'd think by now people would understand that socialism doesn't/can't work. Thanks. "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > Kai Fuller wrote: > > > > Not if sharing any of my "profits" would only have a negligible effect. > > and the Drug Companies would still make plenty of profit based on their > > sales in America and the west. > > > Took the words right out of my mouth Kai. Remember, people like this > guy don't believe in "take from the rich & give to the poor". They > believe in "take from the poor & give to the rich". People like him are > what Richard Stallman would term (rightfully) as a parasite upon > society. Before capitalism can evolve to the next level, Big Business > is going to have to come to the understanding that undue (excessive & > unjust) profits only act as a drain upon the greater economy. Beyond a > resonable point, the excessive profit margin takes away income from the > market that would otherwise be spent on other goods & services which > would serve to expand the economy. Another saying I've heard before > that I found amusing is: "The rich steal from & exploit the poor, the > middle class looks the other way because they hope to be rich themselves > one day". But he still doesn't understand why the label "Capitalist" is > an insult. He speaks without letting his heart listen to his very own > (mean-spirited)words... > > -- > > Fester

Eddie Pettit wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > So neither of you have done anything to help the people in Africa other than > promote taking from the rich, that earned it, to give to the poor, that > haven't... See if just you and the other bleeding heart would just share > your profits rather than your opinions, maybe a few more families could have > eaten tonight... Oh, your profits are meaningless, seems to me if you want > to help, feeding 2 families for 1 night, might actually help...

Sorry. No profits here. As badly as my employer steals from me, I don't even break even. Nice try. -- Fester

"Ross Hashana" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vV1%6.33560$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (68 lines)

> .. "They can't possibly show NASCAR 24/7, can they?" .. > I was successfully able to hack into FOX-SPORTS exec's computers, and > discovered a sample of the proposed NASCAR-TV schedule. It looks fairly > interesting, to tell you the truth.. > > ---------------------------- > 12:00am-3:00am: "The NASCAR STORE" - home shopping at its finest. > This week featuring "exclusive" Dale Earnhardt memorabilia. > 3:00-5:00am: Non-NASCAR Race Feature (today's Feature: Monaco F1 GP) > (tape delayed) > 5:00-7:00am: Infomercials > 7:30-8:00am: NASCAR NEWS (live Fri, Sat, Sun, Mon; replay every > Tue, Wed, Thu) > 8:00-10:30am: NASCAR RACE-RECAP (highlights of the weekends > NASCAR events) > 10:30-11:00am: The NASCAR CHEF: featured NASCAR drivers show you their > favourite kitchen creations. This week Robby Gordon shows > how he creates his world-famous "Nacho & Dip a la Gordon" > 11:00-12:00pm: Victory Circle - A look back at memorable NASCAR races > 12:00-12:30pm: NASCAR University - reading & 'riting tips, from > beginner to advanced skill levels. > 12:30-1:00pm: NASCAR NEWS (repeat, see 7am) > 1:00-2:00pm: Legends of Stock Car Racing > 2:00-2:30pm: The Man Behind the Helmet - NASCAR personalities share > a look into their lives away from the track. > 2:30-3:00pm: NASCAR Track Talk - NASCAR drivers discuss this week's > track(s), set-ups, race expectations, history. Features a > viewer call-in segment. > 3:00-3:30pm: NASCAR-TOON - (children) An evil race engineer > conspires to put star driver Chip Dented out of the race > so his son/brother can take his seat > 3:30-4:00pm: NASCAR Hunter - NASCAR personalities take the cameras > with them on hunting trips and share their favourite hunting > tips & stories. > 4:00-4:30pm: NASCAR-TOON - (children) Star driver Chip Dented is > abducted by aliens and must return to Earth by Sunday > afternoon, in time for the big race. > 4:30-6:00pm: "The NASCAR STORE" - home shopping at its finest. > This week featuring "exclusive" Dale Earnhardt memorabilia. > 6:00-8:00pm: NASCAR REPLAY - complete replay of a featured NASCAR > broadcast. Today: last weekend's Busch-North race at Bristol > 8:00-9:00pm: Daytona, 32114 - the teens deal with the suicide of a > classmate. Buck finally asks Dolly on a date. JimBob has a > run-in with a rival driver. > 9:00-9:30pm: NASCAR Feud - (gameshow) Celebrity NASCAR crew members > try to out-guess the contestants. Hosted by Dick Trickle. > 9:30-10:00pm: NASCARmedian - NASCAR personalities try stand-up comedy. > At the end of each show, viewers may call-in & vote for the > funniest performer. > 10:00-10:30pm: NASCAR Mechanic - NASCAR race mechanics share their > experience with automotive tips > 10:30-11:00pm: NASCAR University - Language & social skills for the > Redneck, beginner to advanced skill levels. > 11:00-12:00pm: Not-the-NASCAR-News (courtesy of ESPN1) - News from > around the Non-NASCAR racing world. > ---------------------------- > > Well, you can't say it doesn't have a bit of something to please > everyone, > can you? > Funny though why they would put the 'NASCAR Hunter' smack-dab in the > middle > of the two children's cartoons. I think I'm going to write a letter to > complain! > > R. Hashana > >

Everything sounds about right on target except for one thing: BUSCH NORTH DOESN'T RACE AT BRISTOL. Hence the "North" part. <G> -- Gary

> Sorry. No profits here. As badly as my employer steals from me, I > don't even break even. Nice try. You know, it's always you poor guys with 'no profits' that want to take from the rich to give to the poor, I guess there's a pattern there... I'm done with this topic. Thanks. "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Eddie Pettit wrote: > > > > So neither of you have done anything to help the people in Africa otherthan > > promote taking from the rich, that earned it, to give to the poor, that > > haven't... See if just you and the other bleeding heart would justshare > > your profits rather than your opinions, maybe a few more families couldhave > > eaten tonight... Oh, your profits are meaningless, seems to me if youwant

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > to help, feeding 2 families for 1 night, might actually help... > > > Sorry. No profits here. As badly as my employer steals from me, I > don't even break even. Nice try. > > -- > > Fester

"Gary Silverman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:cEc%6.8532 > > 6:00-8:00pm: NASCAR REPLAY - complete replay of a featured NASCAR > > broadcast. Today: last weekend's Busch-North race atBristol > > 8:00-9:00pm: Daytona, 32114 - the teens deal with the suicide ofa > > classmate. Buck finally asks Dolly on a date. JimBob hasa > > run-in with a rival driver. > Everything sounds about right on target except for one thing: BUSCHNORTH > DOESN'T RACE AT BRISTOL. Hence the "North" part. <G> I don't know.. I didn't write the schedule!! Maybe a simple error, or maybe they know something we don't about next year's schedule??? R. Hashana

"Ross Hashana" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SCe%6.34089$[email hidden]... > I don't know.. I didn't write the schedule!! > Maybe a simple error, or maybe they know something we don't about next > year's schedule??? ... Damn execs!!

"Eddie Pettit" <[email hidden]> writes: > The drug companies harm people by expecting to make a profit... Nice > socialist ideals... You want someone else to give their money away, but not > your money... If you drive by an accident, you are expected to stop and help even if it means that you are losing money because you won't be able to deliver the pizza in time. > By the same token, you, by withholding a portion of your profits from > Africa, are harming Africa as much as the Drug Company not providing them > with a portion of their profits. Just giving money is not the answer to Africas problem. (As a business owner what do you want: A lump of money or reduced taxation on the stuff you sell so you can be more competitive?) -- -asbjxrn

Are you a fascist or just plain elitist? Marty Eddie Pettit wrote:

Quoted text (40 lines)

> Sorry to bring it back up, but you said I left something unanswered so I'll > attempt to answer it... > > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Eddie Pettit wrote: > > > > > > "Uncle Fester" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Without the product they produce, there'd be nothing to make a profit > > > > ON. Where is upper management's value-add on the product? > > > > > > The employees in the trenches are easily replaceable... Good upper > > > management is hard to come by, just look at the dot-com world to see > this. > > > > > > Still didn't tell me where upper management's value-add on the end > > product is. > > The upper management made the decisions that allowed the front line people > to do their jobs and produce such a fine product, you don't thing the > average idiot front line worker could produce it or decide anything on their > own do you? > > > > > Bingo. Patents. Instead of caring for your fellow human being. > > > > Sickening. > > > > > > Patents? You mean intellectual property? You are against intellectual > > > property rights? A company spends millions or billions to develop > something > > > and they are supposed to allow people to just give it away? > > > > No. We should just let people die right? Hope you or yours never needs > > help from others when/if you are ever down. > > Some people are just meant to die. You can't save everyone... And I do > really believe that. I don't expect help from others to care for my family. > We care for ourselves and have insurance for catastrophic needs.

"Marty U'Ren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Are you a fascist or just plain elitist? > > Marty Are those mutually exclusive?