Is this the end of Discovery Wings Channel ??

[LJ611]

Bringing viewers compelling, real-world stories of heroism, military
strategy, technological breakthroughs and turning points in history,
Discovery Communications, Inc. will transition its Discovery Wings
Channel to the Military Channel on Monday, Jan. 10, 2005.

http://wings.discovery.com/convergence/military/announcement/announcement.html

[AI Nut]

It might as well end. It has about 5 hours a month on GA, and maybe 5 hours
per year about homebuilts. <sigh>

AI Nut


"LJ611" > wrote in message
...
> Bringing viewers compelling, real-world stories of heroism, military
> strategy, technological breakthroughs and turning points in history,
> Discovery Communications, Inc. will transition its Discovery Wings
> Channel to the Military Channel on Monday, Jan. 10, 2005.
>
>
http://wings.discovery.com/convergence/military/announcement/announcement.html

[Richard Bennett]

And we have all seen the footage at least once before.
"AI Nut" > wrote in message
...
> It might as well end. It has about 5 hours a month on GA, and maybe 5
> hours
> per year about homebuilts. <sigh>
>
> AI Nut
>
>
> "LJ611" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bringing viewers compelling, real-world stories of heroism, military
>> strategy, technological breakthroughs and turning points in history,
>> Discovery Communications, Inc. will transition its Discovery Wings
>> Channel to the Military Channel on Monday, Jan. 10, 2005.
>>
>>
> http://wings.discovery.com/convergence/military/announcement/announcement.html
>
>

[Bo]

It's always been the Military Channel. At least now the name is accurate.
"The Military Channel, Glorifying and Glamorizing Colonialism and Mass
Murder". Sounds like Fox "News" doesn't it?

[Juan Jimenez]

Not really, Fox is actually about glorifying and glamorizing pigheadedness,
idiocy and demagoguery. Close, but not quite. :)

"Bo" > wrote in message
news:1102260753.lRlQCSLQhqIKM4RhRrUnyw@teranews...
> It's always been the Military Channel. At least now the name is accurate.
> "The Military Channel, Glorifying and Glamorizing Colonialism and Mass
> Murder". Sounds like Fox "News" doesn't it?
>

[Matt Whiting]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> Not really, Fox is actually about glorifying and glamorizing pigheadedness,
> idiocy and demagoguery. Close, but not quite. :)

I hadn't noticed that you were on staff at Fox...

Matt

[Juan Jimenez]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> Not really, Fox is actually about glorifying and glamorizing
>> pigheadedness, idiocy and demagoguery. Close, but not quite. :)
>
> I hadn't noticed that you were on staff at Fox...
>
> Matt

I hadn't noticed you were an aspiring comedian. Take my advice, keep your
day job. <chuckle>

Juan

[Dude]

Matt,

Please don't take the bait. Anyone who writes a comment like that is
obviously starving for attention, and the best way to deal with it is to
ignore it.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> Not really, Fox is actually about glorifying and glamorizing
>> pigheadedness, idiocy and demagoguery. Close, but not quite. :)
>
> I hadn't noticed that you were on staff at Fox...
>
> Matt
>

[Matt Whiting]

Dude wrote:

> Matt,
>
> Please don't take the bait. Anyone who writes a comment like that is
> obviously starving for attention, and the best way to deal with it is to
> ignore it.
>
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not really, Fox is actually about glorifying and glamorizing
>>>pigheadedness, idiocy and demagoguery. Close, but not quite. :)
>>
>>I hadn't noticed that you were on staff at Fox...
>>
>>Matt

That was just too juicy to ignore. And if you want to play ng
moderator, at least post at the bottom like the internet pros.

Matt

[B2431]

>From: "Bo"
>Date: 12/5/2004 09:32 Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <1102260753.lRlQCSLQhqIKM4RhRrUnyw@teranews>
>
>It's always been the Military Channel. At least now the name is accurate.
>"The Military Channel, Glorifying and Glamorizing Colonialism and Mass
>Murder". Sounds like Fox "News" doesn't it?

Your biases are showing.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dude]

Exactly what qualifies someone as an internet pro, and according to what
standard is posting at the bottom preferred on the internet? Assuming it is
even preferred on usenet.

PS I am not bing a moderator, just commenting like everyone else. Sorry if
my comment took an authoritative tone.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dude wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>> Please don't take the bait. Anyone who writes a comment like that is
>> obviously starving for attention, and the best way to deal with it is to
>> ignore it.
>>
>>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not really, Fox is actually about glorifying and glamorizing
>>>>pigheadedness, idiocy and demagoguery. Close, but not quite. :)
>>>
>>>I hadn't noticed that you were on staff at Fox...
>>>
>>>Matt
>
> That was just too juicy to ignore. And if you want to play ng moderator,
> at least post at the bottom like the internet pros.
>
> Matt
>

[Rich S.]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Exactly what qualifies someone as an internet pro, and according to what
> standard is posting at the bottom preferred on the internet? Assuming it
> is even preferred on usenet.

"Pro" is slang for "prophylactic" and means someone who Googles up "top
posting vs. bottom posting on r.a.h." and then goes ahead and posts any way
he wants to - 'cuz no matter which way he chooses, somebody's going to call
him a "p***k". :))

Rich "You can't win either way" S.

[Jean-Paul Roy]

Internet pros,,,,,my a!!!!s
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dude wrote:
>
> > Matt,
> >
> > Please don't take the bait. Anyone who writes a comment like that is
> > obviously starving for attention, and the best way to deal with it is to
> > ignore it.
> >
> >
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Juan Jimenez wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Not really, Fox is actually about glorifying and glamorizing
> >>>pigheadedness, idiocy and demagoguery. Close, but not quite. :)
> >>
> >>I hadn't noticed that you were on staff at Fox...
> >>
> >>Matt
>
> That was just too juicy to ignore. And if you want to play ng
> moderator, at least post at the bottom like the internet pros.
>
> Matt
>
>

[Dude]

See Bottom for Post :)

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Exactly what qualifies someone as an internet pro, and according to what
> standard is posting at the bottom preferred on the internet? Assuming it
> is even preferred on usenet.
>
> PS I am not bing a moderator, just commenting like everyone else. Sorry
> if my comment took an authoritative tone.
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Dude wrote:
>>
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> Please don't take the bait. Anyone who writes a comment like that is
>>> obviously starving for attention, and the best way to deal with it is to
>>> ignore it.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Not really, Fox is actually about glorifying and glamorizing
>>>>>pigheadedness, idiocy and demagoguery. Close, but not quite. :)
>>>>
>>>>I hadn't noticed that you were on staff at Fox...
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>
>> That was just too juicy to ignore. And if you want to play ng moderator,
>> at least post at the bottom like the internet pros.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>

So, interesting discussions on the web about top posting vs. the bottom.

Though there seem to be some people using readers that don't like top posts,
and likely more pro-bottom than pro-top people, I didn't find anyone
claiming to be from usenet or any standards body with an answer. That
doesn't mean there isn't, just that my patience is limited on how much
googling I will do.

In fact, the best reason to bottom post, or even snip and post is to keep
the conversation going. It would seem to me that if you were not looking
for a response or conversation that top posting would make a statement to
that effect. If one were trying to enforce a code on this, the only
effective way would seem to be to not respond to top posts.

Also, before I get accused of "trolling", I was not trying to actually get
an answer on the internet pro thing, I was being a smart a**. There is no
such thing as an internet pro.

[Roger]

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:08:33 GMT, "Dude" > wrote:

<snip>

>So, interesting discussions on the web about top posting vs. the bottom.

Oh, oh...here we go again<LOL>

>
>Though there seem to be some people using readers that don't like top posts,
>and likely more pro-bottom than pro-top people, I didn't find anyone
>claiming to be from usenet or any standards body with an answer. That

There is no standard. Just preferences.

>doesn't mean there isn't, just that my patience is limited on how much
>googling I will do.

I use Google local, but due to it using IE, I try to avoid using it on
the net.

The last time I used it on the net I found one of those sites that had
been infected and was just waiting for IE to come along. Only my
firewall saved a lot of work.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Matt Whiting]

Dude wrote:

> Exactly what qualifies someone as an internet pro, and according to what
> standard is posting at the bottom preferred on the internet? Assuming it is
> even preferred on usenet.

OK, I'll do some of your homework for you...

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

[Dude]

> Dude wrote:
>
>> Exactly what qualifies someone as an internet pro, and according to what
>> standard is posting at the bottom preferred on the internet? Assuming it
>> is even preferred on usenet.
>
> OK, I'll do some of your homework for you...
>
> http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html


Uh, sorry. Not a standards body. Refers to an faq.org site which
SPECIFICALLY states that their suggestions are not a standard.

Your response does not meet the criteria at all, so your implication that I
was lazy and did not do my own homework is therefore out of line. Unless
you want to avoid guilt of hypocrisy (you were too lazy to find it either)
you may want to admit thta I am right.

Its not a standard, though top posting may be preferred by a reasonably
vocal group for reasons well spelled out in my own response to my post which
you ignored because you were so intent on scoring a point.

In further response to my own question let me state that while I still
haven't found any reasonable criteria for the term "internet pro", I can
tell you that its NOT someone who doesn't know what a "standard" is.

Also, let me point out that if I have a snappy one liner of little
historical value I will continue to post it on top if I like. You are free
to ignore it, or anything else I post.