TV Guide Retro...

[ChuckNet]

I didn't know FtM reruns aired on WOR in 1982, either?

Ch. 9 seemed to air a good # of GS reruns after they were cancelled in 1982...besides FtM, they also aired LMaD 80 in some obscure overnight slot (I think it was 4:30 AM) during the latter part of the 81-82 season, and they also aired late night reruns of Pitfall sporadically at 12:30 AM in fall 82, not long after it was cancelled.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")

[chrispw1]

Could you give the listings from the other 80s ones and 1979 one as well as all the daytime programming not just game shows that was preempted and which ones were picked up by independents. it is something I have been trying to research regarding preemptions and indeoendents picking shows up.

[aaron sica]

[quote name=\'chrispw1\' post=\'138153\' date=\'Nov 17 2006, 11:14 PM\']
Could you give the listings from the other 80s ones and 1979 one as well as all the daytime programming not just game shows that was preempted and which ones were picked up by independents. it is something I have been trying to research regarding preemptions and indeoendents picking shows up.
[/quote]

Sorry, I don't have the time. Perhaps there's a library around you!

[Tim L]

[quote name=\'chrispw1\' post=\'138153\' date=\'Nov 17 2006, 11:14 PM\']
Could you give the listings from the other 80s ones and 1979 one as well as all the daytime programming not just game shows that was preempted and which ones were picked up by independents. it is something I have been trying to research regarding preemptions and indeoendents picking shows up.
[/quote]


chris:
    Welcome to the forum..The "retro" schedules were something some of us did well over a year  ago..primarily game-show related..While it was fun at first it kind of got old real fast..So I wouldnt expect anyone just to post schedules at this point just because you ask..As Aaron said, Your local library is a good place to research old TV listings, TV Guides, etc.  Also, some consider it not good form to reply to posts over a year old..Just a caution..Enjoy your stay..

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'Tim L\' post=\'138162\' date=\'Nov 18 2006, 01:39 AM\']
 Also, some consider it not good form to reply to posts over a year old..Just a caution..Enjoy your stay..[/quote]
I had a thought about this.  It's possible that a newbie with a specific interest (vintage TVG schedules, for example) was drawn here by a Google search that happened to identify an old post of ours.  He very well could have entered our forum on an old page.  That seems a lot more likely than somebody carefully poring through hundreds of pages before deciding that his first post would relate to something so ancient.  Maybe we should back off from that criticism a little.

[Tim L]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'138168\' date=\'Nov 18 2006, 08:59 AM\']
[quote name=\'Tim L\' post=\'138162\' date=\'Nov 18 2006, 01:39 AM\']
 Also, some consider it not good form to reply to posts over a year old..Just a caution..Enjoy your stay..[/quote]
I had a thought about this.  It's possible that a newbie with a specific interest (vintage TVG schedules, for example) was drawn here by a Google search that happened to identify an old post of ours.  He very well could have entered our forum on an old page.  That seems a lot more likely than somebody carefully poring through hundreds of pages before deciding that his first post would relate to something so ancient.  Maybe we should back off from that criticism a little.
[/quote]

You may be right on that account Matt..Meant no harm really..just trying to be a  help..I know on lot of other boards it is considered not wise..Was trying to spare him worse grief down the road..

[aaron sica]

[quote name=\'Tim L\' post=\'138169\' date=\'Nov 18 2006, 09:04 AM\']
You may be right on that account Matt..Meant no harm really..just trying to be a  help..I know on lot of other boards it is considered not wise..Was trying to spare him worse grief down the road..
[/quote]

I have a feeling that he came here just for the schedules, like Matt said, and really isn't interested in conversation. As for why they're not posted anymore, well said, you put it better than I can. They were fun, but yes, they did get old fast.

If anyone reading this is still interested in them, radio-info does still have people posting them (and it may still even be that same "highwayman" guy).

[aaron sica]

[quote name=\'aaron sica\' post=\'138170\' date=\'Nov 18 2006, 09:16 AM\']
[quote name=\'Tim L\' post=\'138169\' date=\'Nov 18 2006, 09:04 AM\']
You may be right on that account Matt..Meant no harm really..just trying to be a  help..I know on lot of other boards it is considered not wise..Was trying to spare him worse grief down the road..
[/quote]

I have a feeling that he came here just for the schedules, like Matt said, and really isn't interested in conversation.  There, fixed that for myself.

Why they're not posted anymore, well said, you put it better than I can. They were fun, but yes, they did get old fast.

If anyone reading this is still interested in them, radio-info does still have people posting them (and it may still even be that same "highwayman" guy).
[/quote]

[dzinkin]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'138168\' date=\'Nov 18 2006, 08:59 AM\']
[quote name=\'Tim L\' post=\'138162\' date=\'Nov 18 2006, 01:39 AM\']
 Also, some consider it not good form to reply to posts over a year old..Just a caution..Enjoy your stay..[/quote]
I had a thought about this.  It's possible that a newbie with a specific interest (vintage TVG schedules, for example) was drawn here by a Google search that happened to identify an old post of ours.  He very well could have entered our forum on an old page.  That seems a lot more likely than somebody carefully poring through hundreds of pages before deciding that his first post would relate to something so ancient.  Maybe we should back off from that criticism a little.
[/quote]
For whatever it's worth, the two threads he started today show that at least he's interested in something other than schedules.  Of course, he could have found us through the Google search in Matt's hypothetical example and then decided to stay.  Either way, it usually doesn't take long to determine a new poster's intent.

I know that it's tempting to think that there are many more people like tmq800, who often replied to one-year-old posts because he couldn't think of anything else to do after he was ordered not to stalk Steve Beverly, or gshowguy, who saw nothing wrong with replying to a two- or three-year-dormant thread with comments about foreign shows that had absolutely anything to do with the topic of the thread.  Let's give Chris a chance.

[clemon79]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'138168\' date=\'Nov 18 2006, 05:59 AM\']
Maybe we should back off from that criticism a little.
[/quote]
Agreed completely. It's NEVER wrong to bump an old post if you have something useful to add to the discussion. We should not be discouraging new members from contributing even though the discussion happened before they joined, nor should we be discouraging new members from searching through the archives to see if a thread exists before making a new one on the same subject. Hell, I wish that were something OLD members would do more often.

[Robert Hutchinson]

I agree with Messrs. Ottinger and Lemon, and would only add that in such situations, it is probably courteous for the "new contributor" to acknowledge that he IS replying to an old thread.

(I almost said "he or she", but then I remembered where I was.)

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'Robert Hutchinson\' post=\'138223\' date=\'Nov 18 2006, 05:47 PM\'](I almost said "he or she", but then I remembered where I was.)[/quote]And for today's episode of Tangent Time, have there been any surveys or studies that detail what the gender split is for internet/web use? It must be getting closer to 50/50, what with the whole ease-of-use revolution.