https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/

What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
away from its original channel model and direction?

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:

>https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>
>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>away from its original channel model and direction?
>

Simple answer = $$$$

They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
audiences that really pushed them in that direction.

With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
often led them away from the current direction.

In article <n457617d0-989a-4348-8bbf-11c6e45d03den@googlegroups.com>,
<tmc1982@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>
> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
> away from its original channel model and direction?

In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
expensive and didn't affect music sales.

SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
Channel.

A Friend <A Friend> wrote:
>In article <n457617d0-989a-4348-8bbf-11c6e45d03den@googlegroups.com>,
><tmc1982@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>
>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>
>
>
>In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>
>SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>Channel.

Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
was usually foreign programming.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>
>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>
>
> Simple answer = $$$$
>
> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>
> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
> often led them away from the current direction.
>

The woman in charge of the Syfy channel didn’t like sci-fi. She actually
said at one point in a speech that their programming was too
science-fictiony.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0o5he731t95t7061lo@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
> >
> >What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
> >away from its original channel model and direction?
> >
>
> Simple answer = $$$$
>
> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.

Now it's gotten completely ridiculous, dozens of channels that might
have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.

> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
> often led them away from the current direction.

I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.

tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:

>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>away from its original channel model and direction?

In MTV's case, they realized that people would only tune in for a song they
liked and then switch channels, plus music vids became less popular.

As for SFC, their original umbrella purpose(?) covered a large number of
genres (Sci Fi, Fantasy, Horror) and they had trouble unifying them. Oh yeah,
Bonnie Hammer hated science fiction, if memory serves.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:41:12 -0500, super70s
<super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

>In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0o5he731t95t7061lo@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>> >
>> >What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>> >away from its original channel model and direction?
>> >
>>
>> Simple answer = $$$$
>>
>> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
>> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
>> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
>> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>
>Now it's gotten completely ridiculous, dozens of channels that might
>have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
>nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
>subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.
>
>> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
>> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
>> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
>> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
>> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
>> often led them away from the current direction.
>
>I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.

They do put out the occasional new show like the ghost show based on
Real Estate that they canceled after the first season and then
reconsidered and brought back for a second season. Which I am happy
about as I really enjoyed that show, but then I tend to be a sucker
for shows that are bound to be cancelled after the first season. Then
there's always the Twilight Zone marathon at the end of the year.

shawn wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:41:12 -0500, super70s
> <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0o5he731t95t7061lo@4ax.com>,
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>
>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Simple answer = $$$$
>>>
>>> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
>>> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
>>> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
>>> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>>
>> Now it's gotten completely ridiculous, dozens of channels that might
>> have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
>> nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
>> subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.
>>
>>> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
>>> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
>>> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
>>> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>>> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
>>> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
>>> often led them away from the current direction.
>>
>> I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>> bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>
> They do put out the occasional new show like the ghost show based on
> Real Estate that they canceled after the first season and then
> reconsidered and brought back for a second season. Which I am happy
> about as I really enjoyed that show, but then I tend to be a sucker
> for shows that are bound to be cancelled after the first season. Then
> there's always the Twilight Zone marathon at the end of the year.

They brought back the STAR TREK franchise. I think it should be time to
bring back the STARGATE feanchise.

--
[NOM] wrote:

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>
> In MTV's case, they realized that people would only tune in for a song they
> liked and then switch channels, plus music vids became less popular.
>
> As for SFC, their original umbrella purpose(?) covered a large number of
> genres (Sci Fi, Fantasy, Horror) and they had trouble unifying them. Oh yeah,
> Bonnie Hammer hated science fiction, if memory serves.

But I love ice cream!

>
> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Capricorne <capricorne@gmail.com> wrote:
> shawn wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:41:12 -0500, super70s
>> <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0o5he731t95t7061lo@4ax.com>,
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simple answer = $$$$
>>>>
>>>> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
>>>> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
>>>> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
>>>> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>>>
>>> Now it's gotten completely ridiculous, dozens of channels that might
>>> have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
>>> nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
>>> subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.
>>>
>>>> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
>>>> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
>>>> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
>>>> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>>>> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
>>>> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
>>>> often led them away from the current direction.
>>>
>>> I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>>> bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>>
>> They do put out the occasional new show like the ghost show based on
>> Real Estate that they canceled after the first season and then
>> reconsidered and brought back for a second season. Which I am happy
>> about as I really enjoyed that show, but then I tend to be a sucker
>> for shows that are bound to be cancelled after the first season. Then
>> there's always the Twilight Zone marathon at the end of the year.
>
>
> They brought back the STAR TREK franchise. I think it should be time to
> bring back the STARGATE feanchise.
>

They announced that constantly. They did a table read of a new script
recently without Richard Dean Anderson. They produce complete garbage like
STARGATE ORIGINS SGO without seeming to realize that that just sets them
back further.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:

>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>
>> In MTV's case, they realized that people would only tune in for a song
>> they liked and then switch channels, plus music vids became less popular.
>>
>> As for SFC, their original umbrella purpose(?) covered a large number of
>> genres (Sci Fi, Fantasy, Horror) and they had trouble unifying them. Oh
>> yeah, Bonnie Hammer hated science fiction, if memory serves.
>
>But I love ice cream!

Even Nick's "Rocky Fjord"?

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 2022-07-19 9:41 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:41:12 -0500, super70s
> <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0o5he731t95t7061lo@4ax.com>,
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>
>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Simple answer = $$$$
>>>
>>> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
>>> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
>>> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
>>> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>>
>> Now it's gotten completely ridiculous, dozens of channels that might
>> have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
>> nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
>> subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.
>>
>>> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
>>> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
>>> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
>>> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>>> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
>>> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
>>> often led them away from the current direction.
>>
>> I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>> bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>
> They do put out the occasional new show like the ghost show based on
> Real Estate that they canceled after the first season and then
> reconsidered and brought back for a second season. Which I am happy
> about as I really enjoyed that show, but then I tend to be a sucker
> for shows that are bound to be cancelled after the first season. Then
> there's always the Twilight Zone marathon at the end of the year.

Wouldn't you save money on cable fees and gain convenience if you simply
bought box sets of Twilight Zone so you could watch them whenever you want?

--
Rhino

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:27:32 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>On 2022-07-19 9:41 AM, shawn wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:41:12 -0500, super70s
>> <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0o5he731t95t7061lo@4ax.com>,
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Simple answer = $$$$
>>>>
>>>> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
>>>> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
>>>> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
>>>> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>>>
>>> Now it's gotten completely ridiculous, dozens of channels that might
>>> have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
>>> nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
>>> subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.
>>>
>>>> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
>>>> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
>>>> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
>>>> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>>>> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
>>>> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
>>>> often led them away from the current direction.
>>>
>>> I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>>> bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>>
>> They do put out the occasional new show like the ghost show based on
>> Real Estate that they canceled after the first season and then
>> reconsidered and brought back for a second season. Which I am happy
>> about as I really enjoyed that show, but then I tend to be a sucker
>> for shows that are bound to be cancelled after the first season. Then
>> there's always the Twilight Zone marathon at the end of the year.
>
>Wouldn't you save money on cable fees and gain convenience if you simply
>bought box sets of Twilight Zone so you could watch them whenever you want?

If that was all someone watched then sure, but most of us watch other
channels beyond SyFy.

On 2022-07-19 3:57 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:27:32 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-07-19 9:41 AM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:41:12 -0500, super70s
>>> <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0o5he731t95t7061lo@4ax.com>,
>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Simple answer = $$$$
>>>>>
>>>>> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
>>>>> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
>>>>> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
>>>>> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>>>>
>>>> Now it's gotten completely ridiculous, dozens of channels that might
>>>> have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
>>>> nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
>>>> subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.
>>>>
>>>>> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
>>>>> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
>>>>> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
>>>>> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>>>>> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
>>>>> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
>>>>> often led them away from the current direction.
>>>>
>>>> I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>>>> bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>>>
>>> They do put out the occasional new show like the ghost show based on
>>> Real Estate that they canceled after the first season and then
>>> reconsidered and brought back for a second season. Which I am happy
>>> about as I really enjoyed that show, but then I tend to be a sucker
>>> for shows that are bound to be cancelled after the first season. Then
>>> there's always the Twilight Zone marathon at the end of the year.
>>
>> Wouldn't you save money on cable fees and gain convenience if you simply
>> bought box sets of Twilight Zone so you could watch them whenever you want?
>
> If that was all someone watched then sure, but most of us watch other
> channels beyond SyFy.

When I saw this:
===========================================================================
I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
===========================================================================
I took it as meaning you had SyFy *ONLY* so that you could see the
annual Twilight Zone marathon. Apparently, that's NOT what you actually
meant.

--
Rhino

On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 16:17:56 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>On 2022-07-19 3:57 PM, shawn wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:27:32 -0400, Rhino
>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-07-19 9:41 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:41:12 -0500, super70s
>>>> <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0o5he731t95t7061lo@4ax.com>,
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simple answer = $$$$
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
>>>>>> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
>>>>>> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
>>>>>> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now it's gotten completely ridiculous, dozens of channels that might
>>>>> have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
>>>>> nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
>>>>> subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
>>>>>> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
>>>>>> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
>>>>>> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>>>>>> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
>>>>>> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
>>>>>> often led them away from the current direction.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>>>>> bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>>>>
>>>> They do put out the occasional new show like the ghost show based on
>>>> Real Estate that they canceled after the first season and then
>>>> reconsidered and brought back for a second season. Which I am happy
>>>> about as I really enjoyed that show, but then I tend to be a sucker
>>>> for shows that are bound to be cancelled after the first season. Then
>>>> there's always the Twilight Zone marathon at the end of the year.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't you save money on cable fees and gain convenience if you simply
>>> bought box sets of Twilight Zone so you could watch them whenever you want?
>>
>> If that was all someone watched then sure, but most of us watch other
>> channels beyond SyFy.
>
>When I saw this:
>===========================================================================
>I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>===========================================================================
>I took it as meaning you had SyFy *ONLY* so that you could see the
>annual Twilight Zone marathon. Apparently, that's NOT what you actually
>meant.

Of course I didn't mean that since I didn't say it. That was super70s
that said that. ;)

I can't imagine anyone watching only SyFy tv as it exists today. As it
existed back in the first few years, maybe. There was enough new stuff
mixed in with some rebroadcasts to make it worth checking out but
today it's all things that have been rebroadcast hundreds of time with
just a smattering of new things that are worth watching.

In article <nb4m1f$jv6t$1@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:
> A Friend <A Friend> wrote:
>> tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:

>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>
>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>
>>In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>
>>SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>Channel.
>
>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>was usually foreign programming.

Lexx will always be a fav of mine.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 04:30:42 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>In article <nb4m1f$jv6t$1@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:
>> A Friend <A Friend> wrote:
>>> tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>
>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>
>>>In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>>expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>>
>>>SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>>Channel.
>>
>>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>>was usually foreign programming.
>
>Lexx will always be a fav of mine.

May His Shadow fall upon you.

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 16:17:56 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-07-19 3:57 PM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:27:32 -0400, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-07-19 9:41 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:41:12 -0500, super70s
>>>>> <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0o5he731t95t7061lo@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simple answer = $$$$
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
>>>>>>> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
>>>>>>> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
>>>>>>> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now it's gotten completely ridiculous, dozens of channels that might
>>>>>> have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
>>>>>> nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
>>>>>> subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
>>>>>>> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
>>>>>>> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
>>>>>>> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>>>>>>> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
>>>>>>> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
>>>>>>> often led them away from the current direction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>>>>>> bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>>>>>
>>>>> They do put out the occasional new show like the ghost show based on
>>>>> Real Estate that they canceled after the first season and then
>>>>> reconsidered and brought back for a second season. Which I am happy
>>>>> about as I really enjoyed that show, but then I tend to be a sucker
>>>>> for shows that are bound to be cancelled after the first season. Then
>>>>> there's always the Twilight Zone marathon at the end of the year.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't you save money on cable fees and gain convenience if you simply
>>>> bought box sets of Twilight Zone so you could watch them whenever you want?
>>>
>>> If that was all someone watched then sure, but most of us watch other
>>> channels beyond SyFy.
>>
>> When I saw this:
>> ===========================================================================
>> I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>> bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>> ===========================================================================
>> I took it as meaning you had SyFy *ONLY* so that you could see the
>> annual Twilight Zone marathon. Apparently, that's NOT what you actually
>> meant.
>
> Of course I didn't mean that since I didn't say it. That was super70s
> that said that. ;)
>
> I can't imagine anyone watching only SyFy tv as it exists today. As it
> existed back in the first few years, maybe. There was enough new stuff
> mixed in with some rebroadcasts to make it worth checking out but
> today it's all things that have been rebroadcast hundreds of time with
> just a smattering of new things that are worth watching.
>

I haven’t watched Syfy in forever. I don’t even know what their lineup is
anymore.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:03:03 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 16:17:56 -0400, Rhino
>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-07-19 3:57 PM, shawn wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:27:32 -0400, Rhino
>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-07-19 9:41 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:41:12 -0500, super70s
>>>>>> <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0o5he731t95t7061lo@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simple answer = $$$$
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
>>>>>>>> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
>>>>>>>> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
>>>>>>>> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now it's gotten completely ridiculous, dozens of channels that might
>>>>>>> have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
>>>>>>> nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
>>>>>>> subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
>>>>>>>> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
>>>>>>>> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
>>>>>>>> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>>>>>>>> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
>>>>>>>> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
>>>>>>>> often led them away from the current direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>>>>>>> bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They do put out the occasional new show like the ghost show based on
>>>>>> Real Estate that they canceled after the first season and then
>>>>>> reconsidered and brought back for a second season. Which I am happy
>>>>>> about as I really enjoyed that show, but then I tend to be a sucker
>>>>>> for shows that are bound to be cancelled after the first season. Then
>>>>>> there's always the Twilight Zone marathon at the end of the year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't you save money on cable fees and gain convenience if you simply
>>>>> bought box sets of Twilight Zone so you could watch them whenever you want?
>>>>
>>>> If that was all someone watched then sure, but most of us watch other
>>>> channels beyond SyFy.
>>>
>>> When I saw this:
>>> ===========================================================================
>>> I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>>> bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>>> ===========================================================================
>>> I took it as meaning you had SyFy *ONLY* so that you could see the
>>> annual Twilight Zone marathon. Apparently, that's NOT what you actually
>>> meant.
>>
>> Of course I didn't mean that since I didn't say it. That was super70s
>> that said that. ;)
>>
>> I can't imagine anyone watching only SyFy tv as it exists today. As it
>> existed back in the first few years, maybe. There was enough new stuff
>> mixed in with some rebroadcasts to make it worth checking out but
>> today it's all things that have been rebroadcast hundreds of time with
>> just a smattering of new things that are worth watching.
>>
>
>I haven’t watched Syfy in forever. I don’t even know what their lineup is
>anymore.

Truthfully I don't either. I only check it out for that real
estate/ghost show SURREAL ESTATE and RESIDENT ALIEN. Other than all
that I know is that they still rebroadcast movies every week and
Twilight Zone at the new year.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:03:03 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 16:17:56 -0400, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-07-19 3:57 PM, shawn wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:27:32 -0400, Rhino
>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-07-19 9:41 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 22:41:12 -0500, super70s
>>>>>>> <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <72ibdhdopd2nl8kh0o5he731t95t7061lo@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 03:16:41 -0700 (PDT), tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>>>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simple answer = $$$$
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They had hit a ceiling on their income with their current content and
>>>>>>>>> so decided to try something new to see if they could bring in more
>>>>>>>>> money. With MTV it was a reality TV show that hit big with the
>>>>>>>>> audiences that really pushed them in that direction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now it's gotten completely ridiculous, dozens of channels that might
>>>>>>>> have started out with a unique concept but have devolved into showing
>>>>>>>> nothing but the same reality show or drama almost 24 hrs. a day. And
>>>>>>>> subscribers are indirectly paying for that shit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With SyFy they didn't seem to have a clue what to do to get over that
>>>>>>>>> ceiling so they tried everything from wrestling to reality TV. Also
>>>>>>>>> there was what seemed to be a regular stream of new people heading up
>>>>>>>>> the channel (not sure about MTV but I wouldn't be surprised to find
>>>>>>>>> the same churn in leadership happened with that channel too.) That led
>>>>>>>>> to a desire to do something to put their own mark on the channel which
>>>>>>>>> often led them away from the current direction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>>>>>>>> bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They do put out the occasional new show like the ghost show based on
>>>>>>> Real Estate that they canceled after the first season and then
>>>>>>> reconsidered and brought back for a second season. Which I am happy
>>>>>>> about as I really enjoyed that show, but then I tend to be a sucker
>>>>>>> for shows that are bound to be cancelled after the first season. Then
>>>>>>> there's always the Twilight Zone marathon at the end of the year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wouldn't you save money on cable fees and gain convenience if you simply
>>>>>> bought box sets of Twilight Zone so you could watch them whenever you want?
>>>>>
>>>>> If that was all someone watched then sure, but most of us watch other
>>>>> channels beyond SyFy.
>>>>
>>>> When I saw this:
>>>> ===========================================================================
>>>> I just keep SyFy in the custom lineup for the Twilight Zone reruns, too
>>>> bad they don't show those 24 hrs. a day.
>>>> ===========================================================================
>>>> I took it as meaning you had SyFy *ONLY* so that you could see the
>>>> annual Twilight Zone marathon. Apparently, that's NOT what you actually
>>>> meant.
>>>
>>> Of course I didn't mean that since I didn't say it. That was super70s
>>> that said that. ;)
>>>
>>> I can't imagine anyone watching only SyFy tv as it exists today. As it
>>> existed back in the first few years, maybe. There was enough new stuff
>>> mixed in with some rebroadcasts to make it worth checking out but
>>> today it's all things that have been rebroadcast hundreds of time with
>>> just a smattering of new things that are worth watching.
>>>
>>
>> I haven’t watched Syfy in forever. I don’t even know what their lineup is
>> anymore.
>
> Truthfully I don't either. I only check it out for that real
> estate/ghost show SURREAL ESTATE and RESIDENT ALIEN. Other than all
> that I know is that they still rebroadcast movies every week and
> Twilight Zone at the new year.
>

Checking my Cox app

SYFY schedule starting right now

The fast and the furious
Two fast two furious
Fast and furious
Fast five
Transformers dark of the Moon
Dread
The 5th Wave
The twilight zone!
The twilight zone!
Warehouse the 13th the series
Looks like an all day marathon of warehouse 13 followed by infomercials
Four more episodes of warehouse the 13th the series!
Tomb raider
The Bourne ultimatum
Wanted
John Wick
John Wick Chapter 2
The Bourne Legacy
Tomb raider
The twilight zone!
Infomercials

Then a bunch of repeats from the previous days followed by additional
chapters of things listed above.

Well actually there’s a surprising amount of sci-fi H material there. It’s
not hard Syfy certainly but for the most part it would seem to be within
their mission statement.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>ahk@chinet.com wrote:
>>A Friend wrote:
>>>tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/

>>>>What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>away from its original channel model and direction?

>>>In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>>expensive and didn't affect music sales.

>>>SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>>Channel.

>>Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>>was usually foreign programming.

>Lexx will always be a fav of mine.

It's not my place to tell Usenet users whom to associate with and whose
articles to post followups to. I will point out further antics from
Ubi the Shithead. You can decide for yourself if continuing to post
followups to Ubi is troll feeding and if he's truly your friend.

In this thread,

Subject: Channel Drift

I had posted an article.

Message-ID: <tb4m1f$jv6t$1@dont-email.me>

I didn't crosspost. I didn't set Followup-To. Anyone on Usenet who knows
me is well aware that I almost never do either, especially not in a
thread in which the crossposting and setting of Followup-To is due to
Ubi-the-shithead's antics and not the author of the root article in the
thread.

Ubi forged an article from me once again.

Message-ID: <nb4m1f$jv6t$1@dont-email.me>

Note that the two Message IDs are off by one character.

One may create one's own Message IDs in the newsreader. I don't do that.
I allow eternal september to create them for me. If the user creates his
own Message ID, it must be in valid syntax and unique and MUST NOT forge
an association with another domain. Ray Banana, the News administrator
of eternal-september, registered that domain. Ubi MUST NOT use it.

In Ubi's forgery, the article is crossposted but Ubi the shithead is
quite stupid and included a newsgroup that doesn't exist. He then set
Followup-To crossposted to four newsgroups.

He also preloaded the Injection headers to pretend the article was still
the one posted through eternal-september instead of Giganews.

Giganews has allowed Ubi to forge other Usenet users for years and to
inject articles that violate standards such as these with the pre-loaded
Injection headers. I don't know why they didn't stop Ubi years ago. They
ignore all abuse reports.

You may wonder why all these articles these threads exist in rec.arts.tv
at all. They were started by a common author, the Usenet shill.

From: Terrence Clay <tmc1982@gmail.com>

fwiw, Terrence doesn't post his own content and nearly never
participates in discussion except to deny shilling, but Terrence does
not crosspost. From the root article:

Message-ID: <457617d0-989a-4348-8bbf-11c6e45d03den@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.mtv

Ubi forged Terrence Clay and crossposted. We can read Ubi's forgery in
rec.arts.tv but not the precursor article without reading it in
alt.tv.mtv.

Message-ID: <n457617d0-989a-4348-8bbf-11c6e45d03den@googlegroups.com>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.mtv,alt.tv.scifi.channel,rec.arts.tv

Ubi is no one's friend. He's a troll. He forges. His forgeries tend to
violate Usenet syntax in a serious manner desiged to prevent forgeries,
so it's all Abuse of Usenet that really should get Ubi TOSsed from every
Usenet server he uses, but it doesn't.

Just because Giganews allows Ubi to get away with this behavior doesn't
mean you should. Don't post followups to Ubi's forgeries ever. Don't
post followups to articles Ubi posts that aren't forgeries. Just deny
him the attention he craves so desperately.

In article <tbc99d$2ic2f$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Giganews has allowed Ubi to forge other Usenet users for years and to
> inject articles that violate standards such as these with the pre-loaded
> Injection headers. I don't know why they didn't stop Ubi years ago. They
> ignore all abuse reports.

I remember an infamous Usenet mega-flooder and stalker named Bob Milby
using some kind of third party auto-post software he might have
developed on his own used to post through Giganews. He'd probably still
be doing it if he hadn't allegedly died 8 or 10 years ago.

As long as you're willing to pay Giganews some monthly fee (kinda stupid
to pay anybody for Usenet IMO) they apparently don't care what their
users do. They're even more irresponsible than that infamous
dizum/neodome troller's outfit.

On 7/21/2022 12:26 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> ahk@chinet.com wrote:
>>> A Friend wrote:
>>>> tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>
>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>
>>>> In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>>> expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>
>>>> SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>>> Channel.
>
>>> Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>>> was usually foreign programming.
>
>> Lexx will always be a fav of mine.
>
> It's not my place to tell Usenet users whom to associate with and whose
> articles to post followups to. I will point out further antics from
> Ubi the Shithead. You can decide for yourself if continuing to post
> followups to Ubi is troll feeding and if he's truly your friend.
>
> In this thread,
>
> Subject: Channel Drift
>
> I had posted an article.
>
> Message-ID: <tb4m1f$jv6t$1@dont-email.me>
>
> I didn't crosspost. I didn't set Followup-To. Anyone on Usenet who knows
> me is well aware that I almost never do either, especially not in a
> thread in which the crossposting and setting of Followup-To is due to
> Ubi-the-shithead's antics and not the author of the root article in the
> thread.
>
> Ubi forged an article from me once again.
>
> Message-ID: <nb4m1f$jv6t$1@dont-email.me>
>
> Note that the two Message IDs are off by one character.
>
> One may create one's own Message IDs in the newsreader. I don't do that.
> I allow eternal september to create them for me. If the user creates his
> own Message ID, it must be in valid syntax and unique and MUST NOT forge
> an association with another domain. Ray Banana, the News administrator
> of eternal-september, registered that domain. Ubi MUST NOT use it.
>
> In Ubi's forgery, the article is crossposted but Ubi the shithead is
> quite stupid and included a newsgroup that doesn't exist. He then set
> Followup-To crossposted to four newsgroups.
>
> He also preloaded the Injection headers to pretend the article was still
> the one posted through eternal-september instead of Giganews.
>
> Giganews has allowed Ubi to forge other Usenet users for years and to
> inject articles that violate standards such as these with the pre-loaded
> Injection headers. I don't know why they didn't stop Ubi years ago. They
> ignore all abuse reports.
>
> You may wonder why all these articles these threads exist in rec.arts.tv
> at all. They were started by a common author, the Usenet shill.
>
> From: Terrence Clay <tmc1982@gmail.com>
>
> fwiw, Terrence doesn't post his own content and nearly never
> participates in discussion except to deny shilling, but Terrence does
> not crosspost. From the root article:
>
> Message-ID: <457617d0-989a-4348-8bbf-11c6e45d03den@googlegroups.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.tv.mtv
>
> Ubi forged Terrence Clay and crossposted. We can read Ubi's forgery in
> rec.arts.tv but not the precursor article without reading it in
> alt.tv.mtv.
>
> Message-ID: <n457617d0-989a-4348-8bbf-11c6e45d03den@googlegroups.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.tv.mtv,alt.tv.scifi.channel,rec.arts.tv
>
> Ubi is no one's friend. He's a troll. He forges. His forgeries tend to
> violate Usenet syntax in a serious manner desiged to prevent forgeries,
> so it's all Abuse of Usenet that really should get Ubi TOSsed from every
> Usenet server he uses, but it doesn't.
>
> Just because Giganews allows Ubi to get away with this behavior doesn't
> mean you should. Don't post followups to Ubi's forgeries ever. Don't
> post followups to articles Ubi posts that aren't forgeries. Just deny
> him the attention he craves so desperately.
>
I KF'd him a while back.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>On 7/21/2022 12:26 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>> ahk@chinet.com wrote:
>>>> A Friend wrote:
>>>>> tmc1982@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>> https://www.radiodiscussions.com/threads/channel-drift.751516/
>>
>>>>>> What was the reason(s) for a channel such as MTV or SyFy to drift
>>>>>> away from its original channel model and direction?
>>
>>>>> In MTV's case, nobody was making videos anymore. They were too
>>>>> expensive and didn't affect music sales.
>>
>>>>> SyFy has always been a mess, even back when it was the Buck Rogers
>>>>> Channel.
>>
>>>> Some of my favorite SF programs were on USA. The better stuff on Syfy
>>>> was usually foreign programming.
>>
>>> Lexx will always be a fav of mine.
>>
>> It's not my place to tell Usenet users whom to associate with and whose
>> articles to post followups to. I will point out further antics from
>> Ubi the Shithead. You can decide for yourself if continuing to post
>> followups to Ubi is troll feeding and if he's truly your friend.
>>
>> In this thread,
>>
>> Subject: Channel Drift
>>
>> I had posted an article.
>>
>> Message-ID: <tb4m1f$jv6t$1@dont-email.me>
>>
>> I didn't crosspost. I didn't set Followup-To. Anyone on Usenet who knows
>> me is well aware that I almost never do either, especially not in a
>> thread in which the crossposting and setting of Followup-To is due to
>> Ubi-the-shithead's antics and not the author of the root article in the
>> thread.
>>
>> Ubi forged an article from me once again.
>>
>> Message-ID: <nb4m1f$jv6t$1@dont-email.me>
>>
>> Note that the two Message IDs are off by one character.
>>
>> One may create one's own Message IDs in the newsreader. I don't do that.
>> I allow eternal september to create them for me. If the user creates his
>> own Message ID, it must be in valid syntax and unique and MUST NOT forge
>> an association with another domain. Ray Banana, the News administrator
>> of eternal-september, registered that domain. Ubi MUST NOT use it.
>>
>> In Ubi's forgery, the article is crossposted but Ubi the shithead is
>> quite stupid and included a newsgroup that doesn't exist. He then set
>> Followup-To crossposted to four newsgroups.
>>
>> He also preloaded the Injection headers to pretend the article was still
>> the one posted through eternal-september instead of Giganews.
>>
>> Giganews has allowed Ubi to forge other Usenet users for years and to
>> inject articles that violate standards such as these with the pre-loaded
>> Injection headers. I don't know why they didn't stop Ubi years ago. They
>> ignore all abuse reports.
>>
>> You may wonder why all these articles these threads exist in rec.arts.tv
>> at all. They were started by a common author, the Usenet shill.
>>
>> From: Terrence Clay <tmc1982@gmail.com>
>>
>> fwiw, Terrence doesn't post his own content and nearly never
>> participates in discussion except to deny shilling, but Terrence does
>> not crosspost. From the root article:
>>
>> Message-ID: <457617d0-989a-4348-8bbf-11c6e45d03den@googlegroups.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.tv.mtv
>>
>> Ubi forged Terrence Clay and crossposted. We can read Ubi's forgery in
>> rec.arts.tv but not the precursor article without reading it in
>> alt.tv.mtv.
>>
>> Message-ID: <n457617d0-989a-4348-8bbf-11c6e45d03den@googlegroups.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.tv.mtv,alt.tv.scifi.channel,rec.arts.tv
>>
>> Ubi is no one's friend. He's a troll. He forges. His forgeries tend to
>> violate Usenet syntax in a serious manner desiged to prevent forgeries,
>> so it's all Abuse of Usenet that really should get Ubi TOSsed from every
>> Usenet server he uses, but it doesn't.
>>
>> Just because Giganews allows Ubi to get away with this behavior doesn't
>> mean you should. Don't post followups to Ubi's forgeries ever. Don't
>> post followups to articles Ubi posts that aren't forgeries. Just deny
>> him the attention he craves so desperately.
>>
>I KF'd him a while back.

Well, you don't have the ability to kill file his forgeries, do you.
That's the problem here. People have been posting in the Terrence Clay
threads not noticing that Ubi forged Terrence Clay.