Messages

841

Everything Else TWC / Re: General TWC Discussion

« on: March 01, 2009, 11:12:42 AM »

Yeah, I read that on Heather's twitter (about Sharon).  Good for Sharon.  Maybe she finally realized that TWC is not heading in the direction that she is confortable with, or maybe she just felt it was time for a change.  In any way, congrats to her.  She will be missed

842

General Discussion / Re: Happy Birthday, Matt!

« on: February 27, 2009, 07:42:49 AM »

Have a great birthday, Matt!

843

General Discussion / Re: The Pot Belly Stove

« on: February 26, 2009, 05:48:12 PM »

Don't give in to youtube by removing your account. If they're not affecting you, I see no reason to.

OK, I really don't want to...but I hate the state that the site is going through these days. Plus, I did a HUGE mistake...naming my username LocalOnThe8s. God forbid, I'm technically breakingtrademark laws from TWC which I never intended to. 

Why doesn't that surprise me.  You hate the state that everything is going these days...  :

844

General Discussion / Re: The Pot Belly Stove

« on: February 24, 2009, 10:30:47 PM »

Just a reminder that Obama will be doing an address at 9pm.

w00t!

no w00t.  I missed my show .  Ah well.

845

OCMs & Personalities / Re: Jim Cantore

« on: February 24, 2009, 10:17:42 PM »

You give Jim Cantore a traffic ticket, he sends a tornado to your house.

True story.

Funniest thing I have heard today   haha

846

Programming and Graphics / Re: Major schedule changes on the way

« on: February 21, 2009, 12:08:19 PM »

Why OCM's are getting layed off, and why there is more programming, as stated earlier, is all because of money that TWC obviously doesn't have.  It is cheaper to run non-live programming, which is probably why you are seeing a LOT of long form programming.  Hiring OCM's will not help the cause one bit.  If they just layed off OCM's, why would they hire more?    It's a shame that this is what it has to come to, but I guess we;ll just have to live with it.

Also, one of you mentioned "How are they going to get viewers with these hours?"  Maybe the hours that they have the long form programming, are hours when TWC gets the least amount of viewers?  That would be very logic to me, but it could be for other reasons.  I would say those slots have low ratings. 

847

OCMs & Personalities / Re: Heather Tesch moving to weekends

« on: February 19, 2009, 10:27:56 PM »

BOOOOOOO Nicole, and BOOOOO to Heather moving to weekends.   

848

General Discussion / Re: Digital Transition

« on: February 17, 2009, 10:39:43 PM »

As of right now, the only station to go all digital is the CW (KGCW).

Originally, the CBS and ABC afilliates were suppose to switch today, but when they saw that the NBC, FOX, and PBS were waiting, they figured they ought to wait, and make it a market-wide transition on June 12th. (except for the CW, of course)

849

Programming and Graphics / Re: Major schedule changes on the way

« on: February 17, 2009, 07:54:17 AM »

Yeah pretty much.
Out of all the shows they should axe, it should be day planner, and pm edition.

keep Abrams and Bettes, and Evening Edition.


so yeah basically 2003 again, except with Abrams and Bettes.

do people not understand the rating system?! 

I don't even think it's that

I don't think people understand viewers.  Just because you like the show, does not mean the other 80 million+ viewers like it.  I think Gary just recently mentioned that earlier in this thread, or in another one.  People have to understand that we are a small percentage...VERY SMALL percentage, of all TWC viewers.

I don't know why they'd change Evening Edition.  But, we'll just have to wait and see what these changed will bring.

850

Programming and Graphics / Re: Major schedule changes on the way

« on: February 15, 2009, 11:42:38 AM »

EE is a very popular show. I just don't see it going anywhere

Maybe they'll use the same hosts for "Weather Center"  I mean, if EE is popular, it has to be because of the hosts I would assume?  I mean, the gfx/music can't be why it's popular, I wouldn't think:?

851

General Discussion / Re: Baby-faced boy is father at 13 - The Sun

« on: February 14, 2009, 11:18:17 AM »

I wonder why the government wont do anything about this "baby" problem. They cann't just expect kids to take care of a baby. It just wont work. Its like making a cat bark. Wont work. Same with those kids.

What are they going to say.  "STOP HAVING SEX!"

852

General Discussion / Re: Baby-faced boy is father at 13 - The Sun

« on: February 14, 2009, 12:39:00 AM »

In general, I agree that there's no such thing as real, true love at that age. When your that age you just want to get with someone because their hot. You have no emotional connection, nor do you look for qualities other than looks in a guy/gal. Until you look at guys/gals for who they are, and not what they look like, you cannot fall in love.

Kyle, I said both at that age and still haven't had sex OR drink or do drugs. 

Good for you    I wish more people could follow that.  Some do, most around here didn't.. 

853

General Discussion / Re: Baby-faced boy is father at 13 - The Sun

« on: February 14, 2009, 12:16:22 AM »

Alright, my two sense worth. First of all, when I took sex ed they taught contraception, not just abstinence. Not sure when that changed, but it shouldn't have. However, I also believe that abstinence should also be taught. IMO, teaching contraception to a bunch of horny teenagers is the equivalent of telling them to feel free to bang at will as long as they use a condom. Not cool.

I'm 23 and still not sure I'm ready to be a dad. And I also happen to be a virgin. I guess I'm one of the few guys that doesn't get with girls just to bang them.

Yes, they taught contraception when I was in sex ed.  They also talked about the importance of abstinence. 

When I was in 10th grade, we had a sex unit, and took a survey out of ~20 kids, around 10 or 12 had not had sex before.  That's crazy. 
When you're in sixth grade, you can say "I will never have sex", or "I will never smoke/drink", but then people change.  Idk.  I just think being a dad at 13 is rediculous.  I couldn't even be a dad now at 17.  And as Gary says, he isnt ready at 23.  I guess it kind of just depends on the person.  But I KNOW this kid cant be ready.

854

General Discussion / Re: 49 Dead After Plane Crashes into a home in upstate NY

« on: February 13, 2009, 08:22:57 AM »

Such a tragic event.  Definitely wasn't what I enjoyed waking up to first thing on the news this morning

855

General Discussion / Re: Baby-faced boy is father at 13 - The Sun

« on: February 13, 2009, 08:19:38 AM »

Very rediculous.  A 13 year old girl I went to school with had a baby, and had another at 17.  Crazy.

Another girl I've gone to school with since elementary, had 2 kids in less than a year.  She is only 17.  It's crazy how many pregnant girls there are at my school.