Warning - I will be discussing Ryder Cup results real-time.

Warning - I will be discussing Ryder Cup results real-time.

Post by Big_Fa » Sun, 24 Sep 2006 03:44:09


This post is a response to someone complaining about someone else
discussing the results (either before they are shown on TV or before
they saw their recorded television coverage).

This is part of the internet.  On the internet you will find news
(including sports results) real-time. Newsgroups are no different.
People shouldn't have to dance around sports results because some
people haven't heard them yet.  If YOU don't want to hear the results,
then don't go places were they are.  Don't turn on ESPN or The Golf
Channel or read the internet.

 
 
 

Warning - I will be discussing Ryder Cup results real-time.

Post by jc » Sun, 24 Sep 2006 05:42:09

Quote:

> This post is a response to someone complaining about someone else
> discussing the results (either before they are shown on TV or before
> they saw their recorded television coverage).

> This is part of the internet.  On the internet you will find news
> (including sports results) real-time. Newsgroups are no different.
> People shouldn't have to dance around sports results because some
> people haven't heard them yet.  If YOU don't want to hear the results,
> then don't go places were they are.  Don't turn on ESPN or The Golf
> Channel or read the internet.

that's fine with me.  I get really angry when the TV broadcasts sports
on tape and pretends they are live.  I think all sports should be
broadcast LIVE.

 
 
 

Warning - I will be discussing Ryder Cup results real-time.

Post by 3put » Sun, 24 Sep 2006 06:20:12

.
Quote:

> that's fine with me.  I get really angry when the TV broadcasts sports
> on tape and pretends they are live.  I think all sports should be
> broadcast LIVE.

Yeah, right.  We were going to get up at 4 a.m. here on the East Coast to
watch live coverage?  Given that there are plenty of sports web sites
reporting the activity, why try to be the 1st to post here?  What's the
point?
"You da man!"?

 
 
 

Warning - I will be discussing Ryder Cup results real-time.

Post by Big_Fa » Sun, 24 Sep 2006 06:36:53

Quote:

> .

> > that's fine with me.  I get really angry when the TV broadcasts sports
> > on tape and pretends they are live.  I think all sports should be
> > broadcast LIVE.

> Yeah, right.  We were going to get up at 4 a.m. here on the East Coast to
> watch live coverage?  Given that there are plenty of sports web sites
> reporting the activity, why try to be the 1st to post here?  What's the
> point?
> "You da man!"?

I certainly won't make a point to be the first to post here, but I
won't avoid putting results in the subject line just because someone
decides the must go to the newsgroup to read some posts, yet don't know
the results and expect no one to mention it to them.

Reminds me of people who tape a big game and then expect people at work
or their friends to not discuss the results of it in front of them
until they get home and watch it. The world does NOT revolve around
you.  (I say to no one in particular)

 
 
 

Warning - I will be discussing Ryder Cup results real-time.

Post by long&lef » Sun, 24 Sep 2006 06:54:14

Quote:


>> .
>>> that's fine with me.  I get really angry when the TV broadcasts sports
>>> on tape and pretends they are live.  I think all sports should be
>>> broadcast LIVE.

>> Yeah, right.  We were going to get up at 4 a.m. here on the East Coast to
>> watch live coverage?  Given that there are plenty of sports web sites
>> reporting the activity, why try to be the 1st to post here?  What's the
>> point?
>> "You da man!"?

> I certainly won't make a point to be the first to post here, but I
> won't avoid putting results in the subject line just because someone
> decides the must go to the newsgroup to read some posts, yet don't know
> the results and expect no one to mention it to them.

> Reminds me of people who tape a big game and then expect people at work
> or their friends to not discuss the results of it in front of them
> until they get home and watch it. The world does NOT revolve around
> you.  (I say to no one in particular)

I agree. I watched all of the USA taped coverage today while working and
didn't come in here after a short stint this morning as I realized that
I may get more information than I wanted to hear
Dave
 
 
 

Warning - I will be discussing Ryder Cup results real-time.

Post by gpsma » Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:14:55

Quote:

> I certainly won't make a point to be the first to post here, but I
> won't avoid putting results in the subject line just because someone
> decides the must go to the newsgroup to read some posts

 -----

- gpsman

 
 
 

Warning - I will be discussing Ryder Cup results real-time.

Post by Buford Ressu » Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:16:18

Quote:

> This post is a response to someone complaining about someone else
> discussing the results (either before they are shown on TV or before they
> saw their recorded television coverage).

No one complained about people discussing the results.  What they
complained about, and rightly so, was needlessly putting the results in
the title of a post.

The title of the post was:

"Woods beats Monty - a sign of things to come?"

Would it have really been that hard to title it:

"A sign of things to come?  <Ryder Cup SPOILER>"?

How much difference would that have made?

Nobody is trying to stop you from discussing the results, but some people
in the U.S. would appreciate it if you would do it in the bodies of your
messages instead of the titles, especially when it hasn't been shown on
American TV, yet.

If it offends you to be considerate of others, even on the Internet, then
do as you please. No one can stop you.

 
 
 

Warning - I will be discussing Ryder Cup results real-time.

Post by Big_Fa » Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:36:43

Quote:


> > This post is a response to someone complaining about someone else
> > discussing the results (either before they are shown on TV or before they
> > saw their recorded television coverage).

> No one complained about people discussing the results.  What they
> complained about, and rightly so, was needlessly putting the results in
> the title of a post.

> The title of the post was:

> "Woods beats Monty - a sign of things to come?"

> Would it have really been that hard to title it:

> "A sign of things to come?  <Ryder Cup SPOILER>"?

> How much difference would that have made?

> Nobody is trying to stop you from discussing the results, but some people
> in the U.S. would appreciate it if you would do it in the bodies of your
> messages instead of the titles, especially when it hasn't been shown on
> American TV, yet.

> If it offends you to be considerate of others, even on the Internet, then
> do as you please. No one can stop you.

I'm not the one who created the subject.

Why should someone have to change the subject for today's results?  In
other words, if you're so concerned about the Ryder Cup results and
don't want to know them, why are reading this newsgroup?  Are you also
avoiding the front pages of all news sites (yahoo, MSNBC, etc)?

 
 
 

Warning - I will be discussing Ryder Cup results real-time.

Post by Big_Fa » Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:37:43

Quote:


> > I certainly won't make a point to be the first to post here, but I
> > won't avoid putting results in the subject line just because someone
> > decides the must go to the newsgroup to read some posts
>  -----

> - gpsman

Great post gpsman. Very intelligent, especially when we're talking
about etiquette yet you breach one in the title of this very thread.
 
 
 

Warning - I will be discussing Ryder Cup results real-time.

Post by Big_Fa » Sun, 24 Sep 2006 07:41:14

Quote:



> > > This post is a response to someone complaining about someone else
> > > discussing the results (either before they are shown on TV or before they
> > > saw their recorded television coverage).

> > No one complained about people discussing the results.  What they
> > complained about, and rightly so, was needlessly putting the results in
> > the title of a post.

> > The title of the post was:

> > "Woods beats Monty - a sign of things to come?"

> > Would it have really been that hard to title it:

> > "A sign of things to come?  <Ryder Cup SPOILER>"?

> > How much difference would that have made?

> > Nobody is trying to stop you from discussing the results, but some people
> > in the U.S. would appreciate it if you would do it in the bodies of your
> > messages instead of the titles, especially when it hasn't been shown on
> > American TV, yet.

> > If it offends you to be considerate of others, even on the Internet, then
> > do as you please. No one can stop you.

> I'm not the one who created the subject.

> Why should someone have to change the subject for today's results?  In
> other words, if you're so concerned about the Ryder Cup results and
> don't want to know them, why are reading this newsgroup?  Are you also
> avoiding the front pages of all news sites (yahoo, MSNBC, etc)?