Shoot Your Television, Be Prudent With Your Internet

[Irony update, 3:14 today... Suzanne Venker, the author of The war on men, is appearing on Fox and Friends, this Wednesday at 6:20AM eastern time. Why the irony and this blog post? She's mentioning the Manosphere... on television

Further update, 3:29 today... Suzanne Venker's appearance is only about five to six minutes in length. That's not a lot of time and she has a book to pitch. If no mention of the 'Sphere, it's not purposeful]

Way back in the day, there was a counter-culture call to “shoot your TV”. Though I still believe that the youth movement of the 1960s did more to screw up our society than the Cold War, some of messages from our unwashed, drug-addled historical brethren were actually quite valuable. Like the pot-smoking morons of the past, I also urge you to shoot your television. (Note – I am not a pot-smoking moron.) I don’t mean that metaphorically. Find a firearm and find a safe place for some well-aimed kill shots. Guns are cool and a dead TV is even more so.

The problem with your television is that it’s the vehicle from which all things culturally putrid emanate. All that HD stuff is shit dreamed up by “creatives” who are more concerned with advertising and subscription sales. I will begrudging admit that there is some compelling programming but if you want to watch something like “Breaking Bad” via Netflix.

The vast majority of television advertising is aimed directly at women for they are the one’s who control the household purse strings and are far more apt to purchase something because it “feels good”. Men purchase for a direct need or to support his enthusiasm. Of course, a fine new shotgun or hand tool does feel good but both serve a distinct purpose.

Television programming serves to create and reinforce the demented social expectations that generally pushes an ideological agenda that is ruining relationships. It’s capitalism-based social engineering so that goods and services are bought and sold in ever-increasing amounts. A Lifetime channel romantic comedy can serve to increase Valentine’s Day gifts and cards. However, in the process, unrealistic expectations of romance are created.

Fellow Manosphere blogger, Dr. Illusion, backs me up on this with a fine blog post (link below). Actually, he’s got a damned fine blog that needs to go on my blog roll – which is not up to date and yes, that’s on my to-do list. That’s one of the greatest things about the Manosphere, its readers know just how horrible the mainstream media is.

Television and the mainstream media (and this includes parts of the Internet) is in the business of making money regardless of the impact on our culture. As I am finely attuned to social expectations regarding dating and relationships, I see the damage that the mainstream media inflicts. “Why doesn’t he give me flowers?” bemoans some romance-soaked girl bathed in ridiculous social expectations. The question to her is “Why do you expect him to give you flowers?” We all know the answer to that question.

Just shoot your television. I recommend .223 rounds for a long-range or bird shot at closer range.

Dr. Illusion Took Some Time Off

About these ads
  1. #1 by taterearl on November 26, 2012 - 11:00 AM

    It’s different watching tv nowadays after you realized you’ve been brainwashed by it. While I don’t make a point to watch lifetime movies…I have come to find watching what constitutes as romance on tv is more of a comedy to me than sitcoms.

    • #2 by Hamster Tamer on November 26, 2012 - 5:57 PM

      … I have come to find watching what constitutes as romance on tv is more of a comedy to me than sitcoms.

      I SECOND that! After taking the Red Pill, male-bashing “comedy” is no longer funny, but despair not, as whole new fields of mirth open up, as you begin to see clearly “The (Marxist) Man Behind The Curtain”. ;^)

  2. #3 by NMH on November 26, 2012 - 11:03 AM

    “The problem with your television is that it’s the vehicle from which all things culturally putrid emanate”

    I’ll say. I don’t watch much TV, but I did watch the presidential debates. Before the second one, I happened to catch a bit of a “Two and a Half-men” episode where some actress on the show (I think she was on Melrose Place) was asking the character played by Duckie from Sixteen Candles (forget his name) to allow her and him to be a part of a threesome.

    I was disgusted. This crap is on TV and kids are watching this?

    Deeper and deeper into the Rhianazone we go.

    • #4 by Cail Corishev on November 26, 2012 - 1:03 PM

      A woman I know who’s pretty well immersed in mainstream thinking even described today’s shows as “crass.” That’s the perfect word for them. They’ve managed to get around the letter of the law by coarsening the concepts instead of the language or the level of nudity. You won’t see breasts or sex, but you’ll see people talking about them non-stop in the coarsest way possible. It’s crass.

      When I was growing up, my parents wouldn’t let us watch adult shows like “Dallas.” Those shows were tame compared to your average family-hour sitcom today. But don’t point that out, or you’ll just be called a curmudgeon; everyone knows nothing has really changed.

      • #5 by NMH on November 26, 2012 - 2:02 PM

        Yup. All protected by the First Amendment. I bet that is Ian Ironwood’s favorite. It allows him the money to raise a family.

    • #6 by Dr. Illusion on November 27, 2012 - 3:05 PM

      The kid from two and a half men just found religion and he is urging everyone to stop watching the show because the script is written by satan.

      • #7 by koevoet on November 28, 2012 - 1:18 AM

        I knew it. That crappy writing reeks of satan.

  3. #8 by Unscrupulous Men (@Unscrupulousmen) on November 26, 2012 - 11:03 AM

    Interestingly enough, you will never find firearms advertised on TV any time of day. Weird.

    • #9 by ar10308 on November 26, 2012 - 11:16 AM

      Only on the hunting/outdoors channels you’ll see some.

      It does surprise me that companies like Magpul, Colt and LMT/BCM/Noveske don’t do more advertising during UFC and other male oriented Pay-Per-View type events.

      • #10 by In The Frigid North on November 26, 2012 - 6:09 PM

        When the UFC got the Fox/FX/FuelTV deal, they implemented a new sponsorship policy that blocked the firearms related ads on fighters’ trunks such as Ammunition to Go and The Gun Store, and I think that extended to the PPVs as well as the broadcasts.

        Also, in re: your later point, against something brittle like a TV, I think high velocity makes a more spectacular effect than bullet weight and overall energy; you want to dump the energy into the TV, not carry it through the TV and into your backstop. So some XM193 might be the appropriate loading after all.

      • #11 by ar10308 on November 26, 2012 - 10:50 PM

        @ITFN,
        Gay.

        Good points, however if you go with a 200gr .338LM, you can still hit speeds of 3400FPS, which still beats out XM193, and has the mass to boot.

  4. #12 by Dr. Illusion on November 26, 2012 - 11:10 AM

    Many thanks for the mention and kind words, good sir.

    Since you mention giving flowers, I wanted to run something by you. I am thinking of doing a post on Southern Game. All these Manosphere blogs talk about making the woman pay for dates. I can only assume these men live in metropolitan areas, or the north.

    I’m still true to my Southern roots, and I don’t let a woman pay for anything, even if she tries. I also pull out chairs, kiss a womans hand when I meet her, and hold doors. It’s called being a gentleman, and I believe chivalry is still alive. None of these things have harmed my game. The look on a womans face when I pull out her chair proves that this is not a beta move. Is it only southern women who still appreciate chivalry?

    As a fellow Southern man, I am curious as to your thoughts on this.

    • #13 by theprivateman on November 26, 2012 - 11:36 AM

      I think a post on Southern game would be very appropriate if your (or other guy’s) acts of chivalry are met with the ‘gina tingles.

      • #14 by LostSailor on November 26, 2012 - 7:06 PM

        I, too, would welcome such a post. My ex was a Southern gal, so I have spent some time there (mostly Louisiana) and I definitely agree that things are different there, and it’s a place where some chivalry is expected, at least by a certain class of woman.

        But outside the South, and particularly here in New York, chivalry beyond common courtesy is generally not rewarded. Though, I still do hold door for men and women alike–it’s just too well ingrained–but as CC indicated, it’s all about attitude and context (frame)…

    • #15 by Cail Corishev on November 26, 2012 - 12:28 PM

      As with everything, it depends on your attitude and context. If you’re generally alpha in your interactions and you insist on pulling out her chair, that’s very different from doing is as part of a strategy of supplication. She has to get the sense that you’re doing it to meet a standard that you’ve set for yourself, and not because you’re hoping it’ll impress her.

    • #16 by Stingray on November 26, 2012 - 4:39 PM

      I think this would be an excellent post. I live in the South and have had men from both sides do chivalrous acts towards me. I am always grateful for this, but there is a very big difference between a man who does it because those are his own standards (as Cail said above) and between a man who does it in hopes to impress.

      I would be interested to read how men such as yourself deal with an ungrateful woman’s response to chivalry, as well. This is something that still tends to happen in urban areas and is becoming more normal in the South, as well.

    • #17 by geo on November 28, 2012 - 10:32 AM

      Calibrated use of refined manners, which is default behavior for old school middle class southerners, is an effective way to calibrate asshole or aloof behavior and demonstrate higher value. As for a woman’s ungrateful responses to chivalrous acts, treat her like a bratty 10 year old who doesn’t know better. Smirk and maintain your gentlemanly frame in silence.

      I open doors for all women and most people in general. To avoid awkwardness be vigilant and position yourself on her appropriate flank when approaching the door. With car doors its only for women I am or soon will be having sex with. The exception was for my grandmother when she was alive. My parents taught me this at the age of five. Other things they taught me: always stand up when being introduced to woman or to shake hands with a man; take your hat off inside, it’s not nice to call someone a yankee, say thank you, don’t overuse the terms sir and ma’am, and to open the car door for my grandmother….and table manners.

      These are coded behaviors that parents teach their children to signify social status. I think of good manners as setting a frame to convey who I am, what my values are, and to pave the way for smooth interactions. However, calling attention to your own good manners or pointing out bad manners in others breaks this frame, betrays class anxieties and is poor form in general.

      Table manners in particular signal social status and can tell you a lot about a girl. If you take her to a restaurant and she grabs her fork like she’s holding a hammer and lunges toward her food letting bits fall back onto the plate, and keeps her wadded up napkin on the table then she’s from a lower middle class background. In this case your own display of good table manners could trigger her hypergamous nature and moisten her nether regions.

      On the other hand biker chicks, hipsters, manjaws, etc. effecting lower middle class trappings (e.g. tattoos, wallet chains, bad haircuts, boots, etc) rarely lose their table manners. In this case your lack of them, and perceived lower status, could easily disqualify you.

      As a side note, some law students, business students are encouraged to attend classes on social etiquette and table manners. I’ve noticed that lots of the men in these classes become overly finicky or feminine in their eating habits as a result.

  5. #18 by Vicomte on November 26, 2012 - 11:12 AM

    Entertainment is entertainment. Take it where you find it, as you like it.

    The real mindfuck is all of these grown men that like watching other people play sports.

    That’s messed up.

    • #19 by taterearl on November 26, 2012 - 11:33 AM

      Then they leave their commentary on blogs, facebook, radio programs, and sports websites.

  6. #20 by ar10308 on November 26, 2012 - 11:13 AM

    I take issue with this.
    “I recommend .223 rounds for a long-range or bird shot at closer range.”

    I’d recommend at least .308 or more for long range (.338 Lapua Magnum if you want TV execs to feel the impact from where you are shooting) and 00 buck for close range.

    • #21 by Vicomte on November 26, 2012 - 11:31 AM

      Relevant tale:

      My father once shot a television after losing a rather large bet.

      I forget numbers, game, and firearm specifics.

    • #22 by Dr. Illusion on November 26, 2012 - 11:33 AM

      But 00 buck hurts my shoulder! Ha.

      • #23 by ar10308 on November 26, 2012 - 11:34 AM

        Apply this: http://www.vagisil.com/images/producttable-wash.png before and after shooting.

      • #24 by theprivateman on November 26, 2012 - 11:41 AM

        My commenters are a consistent source of amusement.

      • #25 by Dr. Illusion on November 26, 2012 - 12:16 PM

        I burst out laughing in the middle of starbucks…good one.

      • #26 by Hamster Tamer on November 26, 2012 - 6:13 PM

        But 00 buck hurts my shoulder! Ha.

        Ah, a once-a-year shooter… Ha! Shoot Saturday, aspirin Sunday, bench-press Monday, aspirin Tues., shoot again Wed… rinse and repeat… you’ll be shouldering 3″ magnums, no sweat, in no time… ;^)

        I sympathize though, many of the places I plinked at in my youth are now covered with tract home ‘burbs, faux-Med nightmares scarring the land…

      • #27 by Dr. Illusion on November 26, 2012 - 7:34 PM

        I do hope no one thinks I was serious about buck shot hurting my shoulder. I am a southern boy in the country.

  7. #28 by Cail Corishev on November 26, 2012 - 12:55 PM

    I went several years without watching TV (Netflix is awesome). Recently I thought I’d catch a football game on a lazy Sunday afternoon. How depressing. The main thing I learned from the ads is that a married man should by his wife a massive jewel-encrusted ring if he ever wants any affection from her. Also, white men are, to a man, slovenly, stupid, irresponsible, and stupid some more. Also also, people care way, way too much about their phones.

    Thanks, mainstream media.

  8. #29 by Stingray on November 26, 2012 - 1:03 PM

    Come on! It’s a*%$# television! Where is your imagination?!

    .50 Cal

    (It is my great wish to shoot one of these before I die.)

    • #30 by Hamster Tamer on November 26, 2012 - 6:18 PM

      Yep, at $2/round, shooting .50BMG is a hobby for the truly devoted. But, if you just want to “sample” the goods… Hook up with these guys:

      http://www.fcsa.org/

      Probably fewer rapists and molesters than on OKCupid, lol.

  9. #31 by Tim on November 26, 2012 - 1:05 PM

    Its very easy to skip tv. I’ve now gone 13 months without turning one on.

    Instead of shooting it, maybe you could sell it. Without tubes there’s not much to shoot. Get some star targets http://www.startargets.com/ and stick them inside watermelons. My explosive experienced uncle says that watermelons explode best.

  10. #32 by M3 on November 26, 2012 - 1:15 PM

    I stopped watching most tv shortly after 9-11. i remember everyone was very sombre and reflecting on how bad the event was and how pointless most stuff on tv was. there was actually calls to change tv programming to create smarter people rather than saturating it with stupidity and making a stupid electorate who were unable to find afghanistan on a map.

    fast forward a little over a decade. snooki. jersey shore. kardashians. real housewives. say yes to the dress. and on and on and on…

    Protip. I have a 55″ 3d tv and have no intention of putting any ammunition through it’s glorious screen. i just don’t have a subscription to cable, i have a media streamer box for youtube channels and a bluray player for select awesome movies and my xbox which i revisit once every few weeks. just stay away from the mainstream cable noise. we’ve reached a point in human history where you can have 250+ channels and there’s still absolutely nothing worth watching.. that’s when you know the decline of society just had it’s supports blown out and it’s in freefall.

    • #33 by Cakes and Shakes... on November 26, 2012 - 3:23 PM

      I’m with you – an almost identical set up. I abhor advertising, reality tv and jerkwad content that tries to overtly tug your heart strings, therefore I download everything I need and avoid the rest. Even the news channels are poisonous, I do not know where standards in reporting went.

      • #34 by Hamster Tamer on November 26, 2012 - 6:32 PM

        Even the news channels are poisonous, I do not know where standards in reporting went.

        Seriously, and is anything more deleterious to a supposedly “free” and democratic nation?

        Related: remember, before Duh Dumbing Down, when TV weather maps showed ISOBARS, and other “complex” data? You know, stuff you learned to interpret in 6th grade Science class!

    • #35 by Leap of a Beta on November 26, 2012 - 3:36 PM

      Definitely with you. Don’t have a nice TV, but I don’t want to blow my wad on a bigger one than I have. Just hook up my laptop with appropriate cables and watch as much free downloaded/streaming tv as I want.

  11. #36 by theprivateman on November 26, 2012 - 1:26 PM

    For the record, I haven’t owned a television for almost two years. I miss it not one whit.

    • #37 by koevoet on November 26, 2012 - 1:43 PM

      I need my TV for watching movies on or Walking Dead. Not much use otherwise. I watch UFC over at my friend’s.

      Though if I were to shoot it….45-70. Or better yet, a .58 cal Minie ball!

  12. #38 by Senior Beta on November 26, 2012 - 1:54 PM

    Then how will I get my 10 college football games on Saturday fix?

  13. #39 by driversuz on November 26, 2012 - 1:58 PM

    I used to turn on the morning “news” for the weather; I’d wait and wait, then I’d find I had missed the details I was waiting for, because I’d shut down my brain in an attempt to ignore the “noise.”

    For the record, I developed fibromyalgia (with extreme fatigue but not pain) about six years ago. In my exhaustion I lost a whole lot of my capacity to concentrate. I became frighteningly “stupid.” For the hell of it, I took a few online IQ tests, and my IQ, previously 175, had dropped to 135. (I know those online tests aren’t very accurate, but I’m pretty sure that the margin of error isn’t quite that wide!) It was in my “compromised” state that I noticed a huge difference in how I responded to the television: it distracted me much more easily, and lulled me into a non-thinking state. Having gone from Aspiring Brainiac to Of Average Intelligence so suddenly, I was able to recognize how TV programming is designed to subtlely encourage mental laziness.

    It makes me wonder how people who have always had average, or below average, intelligence, unconsciously respond to TV programming. It scares me.

    And on a related note, I met a beautiful baby girl at work the other day; her name was Temperance Renesmee. I’m sure her mother has read the Twilight series, but Kathy Reichs? I have my doubts. Daddy needs a testosterone injection, with a Red Pill chaser. God, I hope he gets it before it’s too late!

    • #40 by Cail Corishev on November 26, 2012 - 2:14 PM

      For what it’s worth, most of the free online IQ tests seem to peak at about 135. I’ve taken them and been certain that I got every answer right, and still got right in that range. With a small number of questions, there’s no way to break down the people on the edges.

    • #41 by Anonymous Reader on November 27, 2012 - 3:36 PM

      Years ago I learned that there is no such thing as a “moving picture”. The original movies were a series of frames, projected one at a time on a screen, 24 of them per second. The movie frame rate of 24 f/s was probably chosen as a compromise – the movie was watchable, but did not use too much film. A standard 2 hour movie took 3 reels to project.
      The flickering picture relies on the well-known “persistence of vision”, the fact that the human eye, or a dog’s eye for that matter, retains an image for some milliseconds.

      US TV standards, until the digital change over, were based on a 30-frame per second rate, because the US power grid is 60 cycles per second (60 Hz) and so 30 f/s was easy to achieve using 1940’s vacuum-tube technology – just sync to the power from the wall.

      Now for the interesting part: flickering images in the 20 to 30 f / s range have a mildly hypnotic effect upon the viewer. It appears to have something to do with the brain’s own frequencies.Over the years, both using movies and TV, there have been experiments done hooking up people to instrumentation to record their brain waves. The brain waves of many people when they are watching TV show delta and theta waves, if I remember right, that are closer to people either asleep or hypnotized. Little wonder that propaganda movies were so effective in the 1930’s – a darkened room, mild hypnosis, and people of that era had little exposure to such things.

      Higher frame rates may or may not make a difference. The TV has the capability to induce mild hypnosis, purely from a flashing-light-in-the-eyes point of view, never mind the content.
      Add the pureile content, and the effects are pretty obvious.

      It’s not just you, Suz. After my father retired, my parents watched a LOT of TV for a while, and their opinions underwent some subtle changes. I stopped viewing TV news after I left home, they kept on with Brokaw, 60-Minutes and the rest of it. I found that our opinions on some issues became more divergent – they were exposed to the propaganda, I was not.

      Were I raising a child, I would not allow any TV at all before the age of 3. Lots of music, and art, but no moving pictures.

      PS: I saw an advert for Henry rifle company on RTV the other night – RTV shows things like “Andy Griffith”, “I Spy” and other 1950’s – 60’s era shows. Perhaps it’s the market.

  14. #42 by scrambledhamsters on November 26, 2012 - 2:22 PM

    I binned my tv a long time ago.
    I have guitars, fast cars and a bar instead.
    Far better off for it than staring at the talking box in the corner.

  15. #43 by Leap of a Beta on November 26, 2012 - 3:37 PM

    If anyone has a youtube link of her talking on fox new, I’d be interested in seeing what she had to say live on air.

  16. #45 by Anaïs on November 26, 2012 - 3:48 PM

    No need to shoot.
    I just don’t own one.

  17. #46 by Stingray on November 26, 2012 - 3:50 PM

    Vox posted that Suzanne Venker article and I was stunned it was on a media channel as big as Fox News. How do you know she will be mentioning the manosphere? Also, as we, too, do not have cable or watch any news at all, who the heck is she?

    • #47 by Stingray on November 26, 2012 - 3:54 PM

      Nevermind. I don’t know why I didn’t just look her up myself. She is Phyllis Schlafly’s niece!

      • #48 by theprivateman on November 26, 2012 - 3:56 PM

        I’ve been corresponding with her directly and she knows about the Manosphere. I am fully aware that the publicity the Manosphere might get is coming from a controversial source through a right-wing news outlet. But any publicity is good publicity.

      • #49 by Stingray on November 26, 2012 - 4:05 PM

        Oh, please don’t get me wrong, I think it is FANTASTIC. I was simply shocked that a very large news outlet was publishing an article like that (Right wing/left wing, it doesn’t seem to matter. None of them like to go counter to any popular gender relations). I also think it is wonderful news that people in high places know of the manosphere. I started reading the various blogs two years ago and I am very happy (and not a bit shocked) at how much it has grown.

        Plus the fact that she is Schlafly’s niece is excellent news. From the little I know of Phyllis Schlafly, she seems an amazing woman.

      • #50 by theprivateman on November 26, 2012 - 4:09 PM

        The problem is that Schlafly and Fox News are quite right-wing politically. The political Manosphere blogs and websites consider right-wingers just as bad as left-wingers when it comes to throwing men under the bus and I tend to agree. Hopefully, the potential upcoming publicity will focus on the social elements of Venker’s writing and not the political elements.

        Schlafly is a social conservative and those values want men to “man-up” to pointlessly sacrifice themselves for a broken social contract.

  18. #51 by Vicomte on November 26, 2012 - 4:17 PM

    HAY MOM!!!!!!

    Vote Republican.

  19. #52 by Stingray on November 26, 2012 - 4:18 PM

    Ahh, I see. This is where the internet fails me in lack of facial expressions and body language. I agree fully that they throw men under the bus (in their sneakiness, I believe they can be far worse in that regard). However, some men coming from the right wing news outlets will be very open to what we are saying here. Their walls might be thick and built high, but they are brittle, especially to the men’s sites. I think the cognitive dissonance higher in the population that would come from Fox News and therefore a better outlet.

    Also, We have been watching The League and the writers there very obviously read Roissy. Any mention in these popular realms is going to make this information go further and wider.

  20. #53 by Phat Guy on November 26, 2012 - 5:00 PM

    If I shoot my TV, where will I go to kill zombies and save the world? Sorry man, my gaming consoles need a display.

    • #54 by theprivateman on November 26, 2012 - 6:20 PM

      In your case, kill your cable TV but keep the Internet. I support killing zombies… fuckin’ zombies.

  21. #55 by Hamster Tamer on November 26, 2012 - 6:48 PM

    Though I bagged TWO wild TVs in my youth, w/ ze 12 ga. pump and deer slugs, I fear that the obsolescence of Ye Olde CRT picture tubes will deprive The Younger Gen of an important Rite Of Passage. For them I recommend the Wild Propane Cylinder, in several sizes. Recommend tracer/incediary rounds… and plenty of stand-off distance. Though not as symbolic at Duh TV, plenty of Man-Points if you actually achieve ignition/explosion… not as easy as Hollyweird would con you to believe.

  22. #56 by LostSailor on November 26, 2012 - 7:14 PM

    I do still have a TV and cable hook-up {hangs head, momentarily, and then regains frame}, but then I used to work in an entertainment-related industry. What little I do watch tends not to be the usual network fare. There are good shows out there–I’ve gotten hooked on Sons of Anarchy–and what few ads I happen to catch, I now see through Red-Pill eyes and find them a most enlightening reminder of the feminized, blue-pill society.

  23. #57 by Drama on November 27, 2012 - 10:33 AM

    But then who will babysit the kids when mom and dad are playing with their phones?

  24. #58 by Trouble on November 27, 2012 - 1:39 PM

    No TV since the year 2000. The dog gets walked and I read voraciously. Kinda miss Charlie Sheen & also Breaking Bad as recommended by Heartiste, but a whole years episodes are only $15 on dvd.

  25. #59 by someguy302004 on November 28, 2012 - 11:45 PM

    Colbert just featured the Venker piece (and roasted it, of course…).

    • #60 by theprivateman on November 29, 2012 - 1:12 AM

      Not surprised.

      And she didn’t mention the Manosphere on her Fox and Friends appearance. Oh well, I’ll guess we’ll continue to be quietly subversive

  26. #61 by WillieMaize24 on November 29, 2012 - 11:35 AM

    Haven’t watched tv at home for maybe 20 years (they have it on at a deli I sometimes go to on Sunday afternoons so I’ll see a few downs of a football game while I’m there) but I wouldn’t shoot it because you never know when they might start running Lone Ranger reruns, which is the only show I’d watch, although if someone wants to argue in favor of Howdy Doody reruns,I’m willing to listen to reason..
    Even if the content is okay (a big if), the times I’ve glanced at t, mostly whatl I’ve seen is closeups instead of the medium and long shots they used to show. It seems very draining even for a short time, and fragments the experience.

  1. Shoot Your Television, Be Prudent With Your Internet « PUA Central
  2. Lightning Round – 2012/11/28 « Free Northerner
  3. How to Lose the Frame « stagedreality

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,352 other followers

%d bloggers like this: