Mac Breck wrote:

> jayembee wrote:
> 
>>"Mac Breck"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>But if the usual rec.arts.sf.tv complainers aren't happy then
>>>>it's tough to imagine how Universal could possibly be.
>>>
>>>And OTOH we have Bonnie Hammer cheerleaders like you.
>>
>>I don't think that David is a "cheerleader" for Hammer or anyone
>>else. He just sees things as they are.
> 
> 
> The problem is that the way things are, *isn't good*, and if you dare to
> speak out against it, you're a "rec.arts.sf.tv complainer"
and are from
> the twilight zone.  However, if you speak out in favor of the current
> status quo as given to us by Bonnie Hammer on The Sci-Fi Channel, you're
> suddenly level-headed/rational.
> 

    Nobody is speaking out in FAVOR of it. They are just acknowledging 
that it is facts.

> 
> 
>>>Universal is happy as long as the channel makes more and more
>>>money, and couldn't give a crap less about whether the channel
>>>has any decent sci-fi content.
>>
>>THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, AND IS THE WHOLE POINT.
>>
>>The consumers care about the quality of the programming. The
>>executives care about the bottom line. And never the twain
>>shall meet. I doubt it will ever be any different. And there's
>>no use losing sleep over that fact.
> 
> 
> If nobody speaks out against the kind of thing that The Sci-Fi Channel
> is currently providing, if nobody gives 'em criticism and feedback, if
> there are only *"yes men"*, what are the odds that the programming at
> the channel will *ever* improve?  Answer: no chance.  To say that "Well,
> that's just the way it is. That's reality.", is to have given up on the
> channel, and any improvements in programming will strictly happen by
> happy accident and will likely turn to crap in short order.
> 


    All true - so long as you re actually giving the criticism and 
feedback to the powers that be.

   If all you are doing is posting it here, then it's just complaining.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32