GSN TCA announcements...

[sshuffield70]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Jan 15 2005, 05:58 PM\']

Which is funny because you completely changed the topic from discussing the TCA shows to something against the professor.

Nope, the subject was changed by this post, which reads in full:

"Trust me, they found a signature show.......but the idiots cancelled it for a "Poker Royale" tournament......stupid bastards......... "

As you can see, this post made no reference to the TCA shows. Instead, this was an obvious reference to the Prof's weird argument that the poker show - instead of any other GSN expense - made a fourth season of Lingo impossible. The subject was changed by somebody else, and I replied.

Not that I much care if the topics on a thread get changed. Happens all the time, and often makes the thread a lot more entertaining.

Anyway, I tend to agree with your tepid reaction to GSN's new show announcements. Neither sounds all that enticing. ESPN's pool shows are only okay, though the betting angle might jazz things a little. The documentary might occasionally have some interesting episodes, but the interest level looks like it might vary too much depending on the particular story.

Not to dump on GSN completely, I'm looking forward to the second civvie blackjack series and the new poker show. The civvies play better than the celebs, even if they don't get off as many zingers. And the new poker show looks like it will maintain suspense better than the unfortunately anticlimactic first series.

[snapback]71390[/snapback]

[/quote]

I was answering Tyshaun's question almost in the same sarcastic manner that Mark likes to answer posts...

His question was:

Although "Anything To Win" seems like a good concept, I wouldn't call it a signature show, which GSN still has yet to find.

....leading to my smartass retort that you seem to have taken offense to.  Yes, the remark is based on something Steve said, but as I've said many, many times, I'd rather watch "game shows" on GSN and not "sports shows".  Leave the sports crap to ESPN.  They need it to cover for hockey.

[CaseyAbell]

No offense taken. I just think the Prof's logic was goofy. He seems to have seen the light, too. At least he isn't saying every new show or license GSN announces is preventing another season of Lingo.

No question the poker shows have little if any play-along value, because those pesky little cameras give the viewer complete info. With blackjack you can play along, first-guessing each move and bet, because you only have as much info as the players. On the last hand of the Celeb Blackjack final, for instance, I expected Jason Alexander to bet big because I thought his opponents would chicken and Alexander had previously demonstrated a willingness to push out the chips on the final hand. Turns out that's exactly what happened, and it produced a win for "funny man," as Stann dubbed him.

[tyshaun1]

My comment was talking about how GSN: The Network for Games has yet to find a signature show (IOW, since the changeover). Yes, Lingo was a signature show before that, but it's not in first-run anymore, is it?

Casey, you brought up the Prof out of nowhere in the first place, don't act shocked when some members who obviously don't care for some of your posts call you out on it.

Tyshaun

[Dbacksfan12]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Jan 15 2005, 03:56 PM\']I don't expect you to read anything very carefully, but your argument that I think GSN can do no wrong is a joke - based on this thread alone. [/quote]
Your past history speaks volumes. Next time you give us "The List", I'll remind you of this thead.
[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\']You should really try reading some of the posts on this board. [/quote]
I really didn't want to go here; but you made two, really crappy shots at me that  have no relevance. Have you ever considered the legal field? You sure as hell like to argue--and usually for no good reason at that.

[CaseyAbell]

Casey, you brought up the Prof out of nowhere in the first place, don't act shocked when some members who obviously don't care for some of your posts call you out on it.

See scchuffield70's comment above. He first brought up the Prof in this thread (which is okay with me) and I responded. I definitely did not bring up the Prof out of nowhere.

Your past history speaks volumes. Next time you give us "The List", I'll remind you of this thead.

You accused me of saying "GSN is never wrong." Based on my comments in this thread alone, that's a ridiculous accusation. Try reading my very doubtful remarks in this thread on the new shows GSN just announced. Take a look at my remarks when GSN brought back the repulsive All New 3's a Crap. Reread my comments on past GSN atrocities like Extreme Gong and Love Buffet. Your assertion that I think GSN is infallible is more complete garbage than that Alan Thicke abomination GSN dumped on its viewers and continues to dump on its viewers.

If GSN puts on shows I think are fun and entertaining, like Blackjack, I say so. If GSN puts on shows I think are abominations, like the aformentioned Alan Thicke sleazefest, I say so. If GSN puts on shows I think have both good and bad features, like the horseracing show, I say so.

What I don't do is automatically defend or automatically dump on everything GSN does.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Jan 16 2005, 11:20 AM\']See scchuffield70's comment above. He first brought up the Prof in this thread (which is okay with me) and I responded. I definitely did not bring up the Prof out of nowhere.

[snapback]71452[/snapback]

[/quote]
I quote, in its entirety, sshuffield70's post:
[quote name=\'sshuffield70\' date=\'Jan 15 2005, 12:47 AM\']Trust me, they found a signature show.......but the idiots cancelled it for a "Poker Royale" tournament......stupid bastards.........

[snapback]71310[/snapback]

[/quote]
Please show us where sshuffield70 mentioned the Prof's name.  He did not.  In fact, by your own admission, he did not.

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Jan 15 2005, 12:07 PM\']I assume the reference to Lingo is an echo of the Prof's asinine argument that the $4.95 GSN spent on Poker Royale made a fourth season of the word game impossible.

[snapback]71343[/snapback]

[/quote]
There you go -- you assumed he was referring to the Prof.  The comment was based on something Steve had said, but so what if he happens to take a similar tack?  You're the one who brought the Prof's name up, and that, specifically, is what you were called on.  But of course, as you've said to others...

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Jan 15 2005, 03:56 PM\']I don't expect you to read anything very carefully

[snapback]71372[/snapback]

[/quote]
Now, about this little tidbit...

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Jan 16 2005, 11:20 AM\']What I don't do is automatically defend or automatically dump on everything GSN does.

[snapback]71452[/snapback]

[/quote]
No, what you do is to argue just to argue.  You've done it with me, you've done it with Mr. Lemon, you've done it with Mr. Ottinger, you've done it with Mr. Odor, you've done it with melman1, you've done it with SplitSecond, and now you're doing it with the various participants in this thread.  Moreover, you'll deliberately distort arguments made by others if you consider it necessary to continue the argument; I've called you on it several times (and would be happy to provide a list by email if you try to claim otherwise), yet it seems that you haven't learned a thing.

Yes, we often argue on this board -- about which era of Tic Tac Dough was the worst (Caldwell's or Wayne's?), about which was Bill Cullen's best game show, about what GSN should put on B&W Overnight, and about any number of other matters.  But when you argue just to argue -- and it is a demonstrable fact that you do exactly that -- you look utterly ridiculous when you refuse to admit it after being called on it.  I said it before and I'll say it again: all it does is destroy your credibility, and if you don't have a problem with that, I don't either.

Now, to melman1 and Mr. Odor: I would strongly suggest that you place Mr. Abell in your killfile to avoid being annoyed.  As we have said about Mr. Horan, irismason42 and others, Casey's not going to change, but you can change whether or not you see his posts.

[CaseyAbell]

Point taken, Mr. Zinkin. I do get carried away in argumentation sometimes, and I'll try to avoid excessive debate in the future. Perhaps others could also benefit from your admonition, but I'll definitely try to benefit from it myself. Yes, I can change, and I'll try to prove it to you. The first step is to conclude my participation in this thread.

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'CaseyAbell\' date=\'Jan 16 2005, 12:39 PM\']Perhaps others could also benefit from your admonition, but I'll definitely try to benefit from it myself.

[snapback]71458[/snapback]

[/quote]
If you look at my post again, you will see that nowhere in there did I say that you were the only one who could benefit.  And there is a reason for that. :-)

[melman1]

[quote name=\'dzinkin\' date=\'Jan 16 2005, 10:04 AM\']Now, to melman1 and Mr. Odor: I would strongly suggest that you place Mr. Abell in your killfile to avoid being annoyed.  As we have said about Mr. Horan, irismason42 and others, Casey's not going to change, but you can change whether or not you see his posts.
[/quote]
Ah, but unlike the others, Casey does make useful contributions.  And I'd like to think he is capable of playing nice here in the sandbox.