Malcom = Funny

I am a very big Futurama fan, and I definitely can't wait for it to return, and I am perturbed that it's going to be at 7, but I have to say that Malcolm in the Middle is a very refreshing comedy. I tried not to watch it the first week, but I wound up laughing my ass off at everything the sarcastic Malcolm said. It is a great sitcom, if that's what you want to call it, and I hope FOX keeps it. They could maybe move that to 7:00 and put Futurama back at 8:30. Or maybe they should just get rid of King of the Hill, that show has stunk big time since the first and second funny seasons. Oh well, and what about Family Guy...that's another post...

In article ,

One more soundoff:

I love Futurama; I have always liked the Simpsons; I saw the Family Guy once and was very frightened; I try to avoid King of the Hill because it's creepy, not funny; I have seen every episode of Malcolm so far (can't avoid it), but have found myself laughing hard at a minimum of two jokes/scenes per episode, usually more. I didn't *want* to like it--the ads made it look disgusting, but it keeps surprising me! Oh, and I adore Space Ghost Coast to Coast!

I'll shut up now!

King of the hill is o.k. I like Hanks character, but the reason I don't watch it is because of Peggy Hill. What a self centered bitch! Come to think of it, that's the same reason I don't watch Malcom in the Middle.

In article , Phish eggs wrote:

Oy I can't stand the Mother on Malcom.

Excerpts from netnews.alt.tv.futurama: 26-Jan-100 Re: Malcom = Funny Phish [email] (713*)

Yeah Peggy Hill ruins alot of shows I like too. If it wasn't for Peggy Hill, maybe I would watch Malcom in the Middle too.

In article , [email] (Janet F Caires-Lesgold) wrote:

Goddamn we need Space Ghost to come to a more accessable chanel! Your right though, King of the Hill is really creepy. All hail Brak!

I watched Malcolm, and honestly tried not to like it, but I couldn't help myself. Being the middle of three children myself, all boys, I just saw too much personal experience in what was happening on the screen. It's not the show's fault that it was placed in a time slot that conflicted with my viewing schedule, so I can't hold that against anyone but the manipulative bastards at Fox.

So I liked it. And I'll continue to watch it. And I'll continue to ignore the opinions of people who say the show is crap only because it took Futurama's time slot, as that sort of 'logic' makes no sense to me at all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

When it first aired, I thought about that timeslot thing too during the opening scene. But I decided not to be so uppity, because of someone's scheduling decisions and gave it a shot (too lazy to leave the chair anyway). I was hooked ever since.

it doesnt suck because it took futurama's time slot. it sucks because of the: dialogue, repeativeness, predictability, and lets face it the characters are annoying. if u like it thats fine, watch what u will, but i give it one season b4 they trash it.

On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 03:05:23 -0700, Harvey Lee wrote:

����t��

I find the dialog witty and clever, especially Malcolm's running commentary to the audience.

How so?

Let's face it. if *you* are annoyed by the characters, then that's an issue for you to deal with. me, I find the characters endearing and familiar. I was a middle child myself, 2 brothers, one older and one younger, and after only two episodes, I've already found a lot I can relate to. Some of the 'family dynamic' scenes so far have been eerily reminiscent of incidents than have occurred in my own childhood.

Not to mention the fact that I too was placed in 'gifted' classes when I was in elementary school. Right off the bat, I empathized with the main character. As far as I'm concerned, that's the first step in 'bonding' with a TV show.

You may dislike it if you wish, but it's not going anywhere. The critics love it, the viewers love it. It will replace "Married With Children" as the FOX standard successful sitcom.

Let's hear it for sloth!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Hey diddle diddle,

Malcom in the Middle,

all I know Futurama will be back soon;

I know I never laughed,

at this stupid show,

and I can go back

to reading about a show that has an amusement park on the moon.

Man, time to config alt.tv.malcom-in-the-middle.

fine dave. if that's what u want to believe. i believe its a horrible show. im sure the majority of ppl do also. if u or anyone wants to watch it i gess thats ur loss

On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:43:55 -0500, Dave wrote:

����t��

"����t��" wrote:

Yeah, that makes sense. It's drawing record high ratings, because the majority of people believe that it's horrible.

How is that a loss?

Obviously, your studies of the English language have been less than "repeative."

Retsam Teppup

oh for god sakes! your going to sit there and hide behind spelling mistakes to defend what is evidently the crappiest show to hit the air... ever! you gotta step out of that cubical you call "home" stick your head out a window, and let the rest of your body follow it through.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 20:12:28 -0500, Retsam Teppup wrote:

����t��

����t�� wrote:

It's extremely difficult to pick one of your comments to respond to. They're all so idiotic, I simply don't know where to begin. I'll try, however.

First of all, your ignorance of the English language is the least of your problems. None of your statements make the slightest bit of sense.

I pointed out that "Malcolm in the Middle" has been drawing terrific Nielsen ratings. While quality is subjective, this is solid proof that the vast majority of the sampling television viewing public has been enjoying the program.

You say that this "is evidently the crappiest show to hit the air... ever!" Please present your "evidence" to support this claim.

That's very clever! Did you come up with it all by yourself, or did you just copy and paste it? Either way, I'm sure that your Mommy and Daddy are truly proud.

Retsam Teppup

I would hardly say a 14.0 share (Malcom's Season to Date) constitues a "vast majority" of the television viewing public.

Brian

<Sarcasm> In summation, the majority of the people who watch this show, watched the pilot because they liked the promos. In short, they're idiots. All of them. The entire farging world - all them bastages is idiots. </Sarcasm>

Retsam Teppup wrote in message ...

"vast

In article , "RickC" wrote:

Ack! I didn't watch untill like the 3rd weekend, I liked that episode (brother comes home for some reason) then I saw the episode with the weelchair bound black kid next. Didn't like it quite as much as the other. I'm really just pasing time untill Futurama comes back.

Why? Because his thoughts are lucid, logical and well expressed?

Nope, can't have any of *that* on Usenet, now can we?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

In article , Dave wrote:

No no no, ignore him so as to decrease "flame-oscity". Or do you like filtering their never ending arguements? :-P

shut your mouth. i'm finished with u.
����t��

On Wed, 02 Feb 2000 21:47:59 -0800, [email] (John P.

yah. i guess that's what i'll have to do...

����t��

"����t��" wrote:

*OR* you could stop posting offensive, off-topic rants to this group. If you simply stick to the topic of "Futurama," or at least stop deliberately insulting people for not sharing your opinions, I'll stop complaining.

Deal?

Retsam Teppup

Truce accepted. My appologies.

On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 12:38:03 -0500, Retsam Teppup wrote:

In article , [email] wrote:

Hey hey, calm down. Why are you trying to change his opinion of the show? What will it acomplish? It's not like they'll move Futurama back to the 8:30 slot just because you make 50 or so people hate Malcom through your advertisements on this NG. Got to learn to accept and embrace other peoples opinions!

OK, I tried to just read this thread, but this is crazy. I, too, was put off by the fact that MITM took over Futurama's home slot. But, I'm better than that, so I wanted to give the show a fair chance. I watched the premiere...and got a couple of chuckles out of it. Then, I watched it again less than a week later.[the re-premiere]. It didnt have the same effect the second time. Then I watched the second episode. It was OK, I guess. Then I watched the second ep again, about a week later. This time I ended up not paying much attention to it. [I hope they arent planning to run every ep twice in a row] Has there even been a third one aired yet? It doesnt matter, the point is, I think the "record" ratings for the premiere are easy enough to understand. After all, FOX spend ALOT of time advertising this new "hit" show.[ and who knows how much money] And, in that time slot, of coarse they got a great deal of Simpsons viewers to hang around to check it out. Again, fine. Then, there's a certain percentage of viewers who THOUGHT they were tuning to Futurama in it's regular time slot. [Those who are not quite as big a fans as you and I, who may not have heard about Futurama's little "break" through the web, or this NG, for example]

"The critics love it". Yeah, I've heard that, too. I think they work for FOX.

"The premiere got record ratings" We already discussed that.

"The viewers love it" Most all the people I have asked, feel about the same as I do: It's OK, but it really doesnt stand out. It's just ordinary. It's like any of about two dozen sit-coms on the air right now.

It might stay on awhile, especially if they come up with some good story lines. I think it has potential to survive. Maybe even be at the top of the list of "mediocre" comedies.

       BUT, to even DREAM of comparing it to Married with children,
is, at best, LAUGHABLE.
       I dont see any chemistry between the characters, and I think
[like afew others posters] that the mother is just plain annoying.

Sorry this has gone on so long, but this comment about MITM being on par with Married with children just got me going. I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

I will most likely continue to watch for awhile anyway. You never know. Thanks for letting me vent. best to you all.

[email] wrote:

Yes.

Forget about the premiere. ALL THREE episodes have drawn Fox's highest Nielsen rating of their respective weeks. (Each made the top twenty.) It was actually the *second* episode that drew Fox's best post-"The Simpsons" rating EVER, as well as their highest 18-49 (prime demographic) rating since 1994.

All three episodes have drawn higher Nielsen ratings than the episodes of "The Simpsons" that preceded them.

I'm a big "Futurama" fan, but quite frankly, this isn't a valid argument. First of all, there's no way that this occurred three weeks in a row. Second of all, the ratings of "Malcolm in the Middle" have absolutely CLOBBERED the ratings that "Futurama" was pulling in that slot.

That's just silly. Even the Rupert Murdoch-owned publications have given various Fox programs their fair share of poor reviews.

Isn't that a rather small sample? Most of *my* friends LOVE the series. The Nielsen viewers tend to agree.

Name one.

When I think of all the comedies like "Ladies Man," "Suddenly Susan," "Veronica's Closet," "Jesse," and "Stark Raving Mad," it makes me realize just how good "Malcolm in the Middle" is. It has quickly become one of my favorite series. (tied with "Freaks and Geeks" & the canceled "Action" as my favorite new series of the season)

You're right. The two series are drastically different from one another. I DESPISED "Married... with Children."

I, on the other hand, see tremendous chemistry. In my opinion, Jane Kaczmarek (the mother) delivers a superb performance.

I know! Everyone knows that "Married... with Children" sucked! ;)

Do you get my point? My above statement is unfair. It's just as unfair for you to impose your "Married... with Children" opinions on others. As I said, I never liked the series, but I wouldn't seriously attempt to sway you in my direction. Each of us is entitled to our own opinion, and there's nothing "ridiculous" about that.

Retsam Teppup

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 14:09:41 -0500, Retsam Teppup wrote:

I had not heard that. Obliviously, I'm not as connected to the Nielsen ratings as you are. [or maybe I should say "interested"] Probably a better way to say that would be: An intense advertising campaign, designed to promote something brand new, can be very effective, in the short term. But, will it last? [dont bother, I know your answer] And, so I'm clear, you DO mean the *second* episode, right, not the second airing of the pilot?

I didnt realize that, either. Impressive.

Your right, three weeks in a row is no coincidence.

See above advertising reference.

Do you really think that there is never any presure "from above" regarding reviews of new shows? Wake up.

Yes, it is a rather small sampling, as is yours.

OK, so it's at the top of the list of mediocre comedies.

Your opinion aside, do you have any Nielsen stats for MWC? I know it was a very popular show. Sorry, but I dont think MITM will run for 11 years. [Just my opinion, your right]

Superb, perhaps, but annoying, [to me] none the less. I didnt mean to sound as if I was attacking the actress. I just dont care for the character.

I stand by that. I dont see how anyone can make a valid comparison after only 3 or 4 [or 5 or 6] episodes.

I dont agree. First, I never made a statment like "Malcolm in the middle sucks". I just dont see it as anything "special", or "breakaway" like some of these impartial critics. Second, I dont think I "imposed" my opinion on anyone. I merely responded to what I considered an unfair comparison of the two shows.

I whole heartedly agree. But that's not what I said. I respect your right to your own opinion, and there is nothing at all ridiculous about that. However, MY opinion was [and still is] that the COMPARISON is ridiculous, not the posters right to believe that it IS a fair one, or his/her right to post it here. This is a newsgroup, right. That's a very big part of what your supposed to find here. Opinions. And what makes you think that I have tried to "sway" you in any particular direction. After re-reading my post, I just dont see anything in there like that.

One question, and I'll return to my cave. Where in the 18 to 49 age demographic do you fall? Just curious.

*Note to all readers: Any and all of my comments made here, or anywhere else, for that matter, are based solely on my opinions, and as such, they may differ from your own. We all have the right to express them freely and openly, just as my contemporary, Mr. Teppup has so eloquintly stated.

Best to all*

[email] wrote:

I'll respond, anyway. Generally, the first airing of a new television program only demonstrates the maximum potential of the series. It provides little indication of the show's future success. (Failure, however, is sometimes immediately recognizable.) Usually, many curious viewers sample the pilot, but never tune in again. For this reason, even huge hits almost always see some decline in their second airing.

The *REAL* tests are the second and third episodes. If a program is able to maintain a reasonable number of viewers in both of these airings, that's a very good sign of things to come. Viewers are quite fickle, and if they were planning to stop watching the show, most of them would already have done so. Very few people are willing to give any series more of a chance than that.

In the case of "Malcolm in the Middle," positive word of mouth actually led to a higher Nielsen rating in the second week than there was in the first. (which was already terrific) This is extremely rare. The third episode performed similarly, so it's safe to assume that the show isn't going anywhere, any time soon.

Will it be a fad like "Parker Lewis Can't Lose" or "Herman's Head"? We'll see. In my opinion, "Malcolm in the Middle" relies upon far fewer gimmicks than either of those series, and that may be the key to its continued success.

That's correct. I'm only referring to the initial Sunday airings. The Tuesday repeats (which have done a good job of retaining the audience of "That '70s Show," despite having aired only two nights earlier) are only a temporary filler. (Fox canceled "Ally," the half-hour version of "Ally McBeal.")

"Futurama" received even more promotion than "Malcolm in the Middle." Fox even sacrificed literally millions of dollars worth of advertising revenue, to air "Futurama" commercials during last year's Super Bowl. (despite the fact that the series didn't debut until roughly two months after that)

How would Fox place pressure on these journalists? They have nothing with which to threaten them.

I'm sorry, but Fox has no influence over "Variety," or numerous other independent publications who gave "Malcolm in the Middle" stellar reviews. If Fox could control them, they wouldn't have given poor reviews to other Fox series. Even the New York Post (which is owned by the same parent company as the Fox Network) has often trashed Fox's lineup.

I know. My sampling is every bit as meaningless as yours. That was my point. The only sampling that truly matters is performed by Nielsen Media Research.

We are dealing with opinions here, but I found all three episodes to be much better than "mediocre."

Sorry, I don't. I only have access to recent Nielsen ratings.

It certainly was.

Here's what I do know: Having been turned down by ABC, it debuted on April 5, 1987, as only the second program to air on the newly launched Fox Network. Initially, its performance was sluggish.

Fox stuck with it, until a miraculous bit of good fortune happened to come their way:

On January 15, 1989, A Michigan woman by the name of Terry Rakolta became offended. That night, while sampling the program with her children, she witnessed a scene in which a woman's bra was removed. (shown from behind) She immediately mailed letters of complaint to all of the show's sponsors. Four, including Procter & Gamble and McDonald's, responded by dropping their commercials. Procter & Gamble announced that it objected to the Bundys as a "negative portrayal of the American family." Coca-Cola's president wrote a personal apology to Mrs. Rakolta and said that his company would review the series program by program.

Mrs. Rakolta's apparent success encouraged her to set up a watchdog group known as "Americans for Responsible Television," to alert more advertisers to her concerns.

Continuing her crusade to rid the airwaves of this program, she visited many talk shows to "warn" all American citizens. This only backfired, however, as it led to widespread curiosity about a series which many people otherwise hadn't heard of. As a direct result of Mrs. Rakolta's efforts to achieve the exact opposite, its ratings improved tremendously. For the remainder of the program's run, the producers sent Mrs. Rakolta a fruit basket, every Christmas.

While "Married... with Children" remained quite popular for a number of seasons, its ratings eventually began to decline substantially. By the last several seasons, the apparent novelty was all but gone, and Fox's renewals surprised many in the television industry. Finally, after eleven seasons on the air, Fox decided to pull the plug. While the producers and cast agreed that the series had run its course, they were rightfully disappointed by the fact that they weren't given an opportunity to shoot a "final episode." Ed O'Neill had envisioned the Bundys winning the lottery, only be swept up in a tornado, ala "The Wizard of Oz."

I certainly hope not. In my opinion, no live action comedy should remain on the air for that length of time.

There is no valid comparison. The two series simply aren't alike.

That's your right.

You seemed to imply that "to even DREAM" that "Malcolm in the Middle" was anywhere near the level of quality possessed by "Married... with Children" was "at best, LAUGHABLE."

In turn, I respect your opinion.

It *ISN'T* a fair comparison. Personal opinions aside, the two series have radically different styles of humor and production. I see very little similarity. "Malcolm in the Middle" does feature a dysfunctional family, but they're more like the Simpsons than the Bundys.

"Sway" may have been a poor choice of wording, but your comments seemed to assume that your opinion was the only correct one. Your new statements are much clearer.

I'm way down on the younger end. (19 years, 2 months, 17 days, 8 hours, and approximately 30 minutes, to be fairly exact)

Also out of curiosity, what is *your* age?

I'm pleased to see that you share my feelings in this area. I've considered including a similar disclaimer in my posts, simply to avoid all ambiguity.

Ditto.

Retsam Teppup

On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 17:08:25 -0500, Retsam Teppup wrote:

It's easy to see that you have definitly done your homework on the
subject. You have much more information than someone would just pick
up in the normal coarse of thier day.
     I enjoyed the story about Mrs. Rakolta and her letters of
complaint,  and the history of the show's performance.  Where did you
get this story from? Or, do you know of an online source of such
information?
    I'd like to hear more stuff like this. Not just about MWC, I just
like that kind of stuff.

I think that maybe I over simplified with this statement. It's never as simple as, say, Murdoch picking up a phone and telling a certain critic to praise "his" new show, "or else". All I mean is that there is an inner circle in the "show business", as there is in every other business or industry, and SOMETIMES this "circle" will tend to "lean" in a certain direction. I am, however lacking specific examples of this. Perhaps you have run across an example in your research? If so, maybe you will share it with us.

I admit, I dont know much about the Nielsen rating system. Like, where do they get these people? [Nielsen families] Is it a random selection? Is there a test you take? Do you have to watch "X" number or hours of TV per day, or something like that? I have never known [personally] anyone involved with it.

Without giving away any "trade secrets" or anything, where do you get your recent Nielsen information? I assume that it is public information.

That's an interesting statement. Perhaps you will elaborate on that. If a show can remain popular, or "fresh"[for lack of a better word] for eleven years, why shouldn't it remain on the air? Or do you mean that it's just really unlikely that a show COULD remain fresh for that long?

Hmm, are you saying that making a comparison to The Simpsons would be a "fair" one, where a comparison to MWC was not?

Certainly not. I think we've covered the opinion aspect of this to both our satisfaction. [That's the way I feel about it, anyway]

Likewise, I dont feel quite so "attacked" by your comments this time.

I cant get as exact as you did. My last birthday was my 40th.

You are obliviously an educated and well read individual. Are you still persuing your education? If so, in what area?

This is the greatest thing about Usenet, and the Internet in general. Two people such as you and I, under "regular", "real life" conditions would probably never have an opportunity to even have a conversation like this. It will be interesting to see, in a hundred years or so, just what effect stuff like this will have on society in general.

My respect to you. [for what it's worth] Best to the group.

[email] wrote:

Me too. The best part of the MWC children story is the yearly fruit basket. What a great way to burn it in while remaining socially cordial and civil.

There's a few web sites that have this information, but they all seem to list only the top 20.

This appears to be the most comprehensive site. http://www.UltimateTV.com/news/nielsen/

Any show where children form a major part of the cast can only survive so long. The main reason I lost interest in MWC was because the kids had grown up.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

[email] wrote:

I've known this story for quite some time. I found the specific details (names, dates, etc.) by searching alt.tv.mwc (The "Married... with Children" newsgroup) at: http://www.deja.com/

I'm not familiar with one particular site for humorous musings about television series in general. Your best bet is to visit Deja.com, and perform a search of an individual show's newsgroup. If a series doesn't have its own newsgroup, there might be a newsgroup for its genre. Failing that, rec.arts.tv is the place to go.

Also, many series (even obscure ones) have some extremely impressive fan pages devoted to them. Some of the obsessed people who operate these sites posses an almost freakish amount of knowledge. In an interview, Tom Hanks mentioned a "Bosom Buddies" site that he had come across. He commented that he didn't know half of the things that this person did, and he was there!

It's only semi-random. The people are deliberately chosen to meet certain criteria. Neilsen doesn't seek out specific individuals, but they attempt to simulate the real life breakdown of the American public. (based upon location, gender, age, and ethnic background) A candidate is selected by computer, and offered the opportunity to participate. If they decline, Nielsen will attempt to locate a similar person or family in the same geographic area. (It isn't unusual for them to pick the neighbors down the street.)

No, but they do ask some questions to determine that a candidate is suitable. (They need to verify that the individual or group actually fits their demographic needs. In addition, they must make sure that all participants intend to take this survey seriously.)

No. They want this to be as accurate a cross-sampling of the television viewing audience as possible. To achieve this goal, they must include people who watch infrequently, people who watch upwards of sixteen hours of television per day, and everyone in between.

Neither have I. If I did, I would do literally everything within my power to convince them to allow me to move in with them. I want some real control over my viewing choices! :)

Not quite. It isn't as readily available as one would expect. Nielsen copyrights it, so it can't simply be released. They allow anyone to freely use their weekly top twenty-five list, but only those who enter into special compensation agreements may publish the full statistics. For this reason, several websites have been forced to stop providing this information.

I am aware of only one online source for the nightly metered markets (consisting of the 47 largest television markets) ratings: http://www.ultimatetv.com/

Please note, however, that this site has the amazing tendency to make every mistake imaginable. Take their information with a grain of salt. 90% of the time, it's correct. The other 10% of the time, it's "Oops! They left out a zero!" Closely compare the numbers to those of previous weeks. If something doesn't seem to fit, it's probably wrong.

http://www.tvbarn.com/ & http://www.variety.com/ also provide quite a bit of valuable television news and information.

The print edition of USA Today's "Life" section offers a complete night- by-night list of the weekly national Nielsen ratings. (which encompasses all 210 television markets) This is usually included in the Wednesday edition, but it's occasionally pushed to Thursday. This tends to be reasonably accurate.

Some regional newspapers publish complete weekly lists, but these usually include only the local market.

If you insist. :)

That's exactly what I mean. Even the best live-action comedies will be stale by that point. As a general rule, seven or eight seasons should be the limit.

Yes. While the two series have some obvious differences, there are also some substantial similarities between "The Simpsons" and "Malcolm in the Middle." For example, how many current comedies can you think of that contain no laugh track?

I definitely agree.

I'm glad. I never intended to come across in that manner. Thankfully, we've both managed to clarify our statements.

I'm studying journalism and broadcasting. At the moment, my ultimate goal (which at this point, is highly subject to change) is to become a television columnist.

I agree wholeheartedly.

It certainly will. Quite frankly, I'm astonished by the technological progress in my lifetime alone. I remember when the Commodore 64 (in all of its 64K glory) was an incredible new personal computing machine. I would use its 2400 baud (and later a whopping 9600 baud) modem to direct-dial local "Bulletin Board Systems." That was slightly more than a decade ago, and I'm now able to easily communicate with total strangers from all over the world.

It's worth a great deal, and the feeling is mutual.

Retsam Teppup

I was a Neilsen "family" about a year or so ago. Basically they send you a letter and ask if you want to participate. If you agree, they send you a diary in which you record what shows you watch during the day. After the alloted time period, you send your diary back to them. Also in cetain home there is a box that records what you watch and is hooked to the phone line so they can get more instant feedback. But obviously that is more expensive and complicated, so the majority of the sample is in the form of diaries.

In article , [email] (.) wrote:

My family was invited to be one a few years back. I had always heard they attach a box to your set, but I believe the info they sent us also mentioned simply writing down the shows you watch. We never responded to it because at the time I was watching virtually no TV, my dad never watches TV unless someone else turns it on first, and my mom apparently just wasn't interested in doing the paperwork. Nowadays of course I'd sign up to give credit to all my favorite shows. At the time I considered myself a fan of The Simpsons and David Letterman, but still wasn't the type to watch the new shows every week or always catch the reruns. I'd end up catching maybe 3 or 4 of the new episodes a year only.

I got to do this a few years back. I put down mostly wrestling and Twilight Zone repeats. Partially thanks to me, WWF is now on more channels than I can count (watching wrestling does that to you) and Jesse Ventura will be our next president.

<I dont see any chemistry between the characters>

Three freakin' episodes.

Jonathan Papish wrote: