[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Oct 25 2004, 12:21 PM\']Some Regis Millionaire eps date from more than five years ago, as do many of the WBSM episodes. Is that old enough? I don't know. As I said in the previous post, it gets pretty arbitrary as to where you place the magic line of "oldness" for game shows. They certainly are traditional game shows, like almost everything else on GSN's current schedule.
[snapback]61872[/snapback]
[/quote]
The fact that there is no fixed formula for determining whether or not a game show is "old" does not mean that there is not a clear difference between a show that has not aired anywhere else in 10, 20, or 30 years, and a show that gets canceled by another network and immediately goes to GSN. And again, you know that as well.
I also know for certain that if the rest of the board were perfectly happy with GSN as it is, you'd be the one criticizing it... just to be different, and just to get a rise out of people.
How could you know this for a "fact"? Believe it or not, I don't believe in just being different to get a rise out of people. I realy don't care if people get a rise or not. (This is not a reference to Viagra.)
The word I used was "certain," not "fact." Can I read your mind? No. Can I predict, with "assurance in mind or action" (m-w.com is a wonderful thing), that no matter what criticism anyone else offers regarding GSN, you'll take the opposite view nearly every time? Yes. Your pattern of posts demonstrates the ample grounds for my certainty.
What I do care for is being as objective as possible in evaluating GSN or anything else. If somebody says something about GSN's schedule, I think the best way to discuss the issue is to...look at GSN's actual schedule. You know, what they're showing RIGHT NOW!, as Fox would say.
And yet, you don't offer an objective assessment of what makes Celebrity Blackjack a "traditional" game show. It is your OPINION -- and you're entitled to it. It is the basis for said opinion that I question. If most of the board called "Celebrity Blackjack" a traditional game show, there's no doubt in my mind that you'd say that it wasn't.
As for looking at the actual schedule, that's not enough when you go out of your way to classify as many shows as "old reruns" as possible... especially when you know that your definition is far away from what everybody else who's voiced an opinion on the matter here considers "old." Yet again, you know exactly what you're doing when you make that judgment -- and if everyone else here were to call WBSM "an old rerun," you'd say it was recent, just to be different.
If this gets a rise out of people, I'm honestly sorry. But - and I'm not trying to get into a spitting match - what other approach would you suggest?
I doubt very much that you're sorry... but as to what I'd suggest, I've already made my suggestion: admit that you're taking the contrarian view for the sole purpose of taking the contrarian view. I don't expect it to happen, but it would be nice to see you admit it nonetheless.
