Should Blockbuster call it quits?

[OzzieAudiophile]

Hello our BB's in Western Australia are way too small to have any decent selection.

There's about 3 isles of DVDs, half a section of BluRays and they have like 300 ex rentals
for sale, which are also a joke price wise. Not really competitive enough to sell even ex
rentals as you can get brand new for cheaper or the same price.

We have some vid shops which have 10 times the selection, and have at least 10 extra
different nightly and weekly offers. Choice is good lol.

Yes after 4 years I finally walk into a BB, and oh yeah they have some Blu Rays, but
geez I'm impressed with my own collection haha. They seem to have stuff that is 10 years
or less year old stuff, and nothing much older than that.

It's in the area for convenience, but they should make a better effort, of course it's not
cheap to run a vid store.

[StevenSurprenant]

its going to happen, like when Rich gets laid off and goes insane when his Viagra runs out.

pixelthis,

You and Rich still going at it? LOL!


The way you two are entertaining each other, it's possible that you two can become good friends someday. My fingers are crossed...Hmmm

BTW... Your quote above was hilarious!

[Mr Peabody]

Well, NF, since you put it that way Probably why the Spice channel doesn't rank high in the ratings. As if I'd know.

[pixelthis]

pixelthis,

You and Rich still going at it? LOL!


The way you two are entertaining each other, it's possible that you two can become good friends someday. My fingers are crossed...Hmmm

BTW... Your quote above was hilarious!

I wouldnt exactly call it "entertaining" to be called a "dumbass" by a carpetbagger.
Rich needs to lighten up, and understand that he may not like what I say, but that theres plenty that he says that I dont care for either.
He would be okay of he could get that rather large stick outta his (BLEEP)

[pixelthis]

Actually, you'll have Fiber To The Home (FTTH) which is vastly superior to cable. More bandwidth which means less compression.

OR more home shopping channels.

[StevenSurprenant]

I wouldnt exactly call it "entertaining" to be called a "dumbass" by a carpetbagger.
Rich needs to lighten up, and understand that he may not like what I say, but that theres plenty that he says that I dont care for either.
He would be okay of he could get that rather large stick outta his (BLEEP)

Okay, I'm staying out of this little fray.
...he walks away with a confused look on his face...

It's just sad to see two good people caught up in this emotional turmoil, It kind of reminds me of a argument that I had many years ago. My wife, at the time, got mad at me cause she thought I was mad at her, which I wasn't, and then I got mad at her cause she was mad at me. An argument ensued. The strange thing is that, up to that point, there was nothing wrong and in the end neither one of us knew what we were arguing about. Strange, huh?

[pixelthis]

Okay, I'm staying out of this little fray.
...he walks away with a confused look on his face...

It's just sad to see two good people caught up in this emotional turmoil, It kind of reminds me of a argument that I had many years ago. My wife, at the time, got mad at me cause she thought I was mad at her, which I wasn't, and then I got mad at her cause she was mad at me. An argument ensued. The strange thing is that, up to that point, there was nothing wrong and in the end neither one of us knew what we were arguing about. Strange, huh?

Its a little more complex with rich and I.
He is a relative "newbie" to this stuff, while I HAVE BEEN IN AUDIO OF SOME KIND FOR 40 ODD YEARS.
I guess he thinks I am some kind of smartass because I call him on crap.
He finally figured out that I was right about seperate amps, and about how his B&W
speakers would really shine with more than the cheap receiver he was running them on.
Of course my input had nothing to do with this revelation.
I have a cousin just like him, you cant tell him anything either.
If you do he will come back later like a lightbulb went off and he "figured" out this great new idea, never mind that its the same one you suggested a week ago.
This same cousin was trying to tell me how to download a file one day, he had just learned how and was trying to tell me.
He didnt know so nobody else knew, and he couldnt understand why I got mad at his condescending attitude.
Even after I explained that I had built my last three computers, had been on the net for years, and had forgotten more than he ever would know, he still went on about downloading files, he knew one way of doing it, I was using a DIFFERENT one.
But he just had to feel superior to me in some way.
Its this same attitude that comes from a lot of yankees like Rich, they dont understand that just because you were born south of the Mason Dixon line doesnt mean you are a "dumbass" as he puts it.
He constantly posts sterotypes about people in my part of the country.
To which I will just quote a famous comedian from my part of the world,
when insulted by a new yorker, he replied...
"I get 200 channels", you get 5, and you call me a hick".

[Mr Peabody]

What? Huh? I guess one had to be there.

[Mr Peabody]

As now I am down to $2.00 on my gift card and you charge $4.99 for Blu-ray or DVD rentals, you don't have all possible Blu-ray new releases available on the shelf, and I can get DVD rentals from Red Box for $1.00, tell me why i would continue to rent from you. Except for the rare occasion you may have a Blu-ray on the shelf I might be willing to watch. Even if not Red Box I'd have to shop around to some of the super markets to see what they charge.

Are they pricing themselves out of the market? Seriously, what do they have to offer to warrant such a price of rental. it doesn't make sense to me.

[Woochifer]

Semantics Wooch. Right now Hulu doesn't have any special sections to their site. If they pull an ESPN360-style bait-n-switch, people won't buy into that. It's that simple. There is a tradition with the internet community that expects free content, especially from companies that offered it before. If they change their policy and switch from freeware to shareware (for lack of better terms), people will avoid them and find alternatives. Yes, a few people will subscribe, but most won't, that's how it's always been. And for those cable/box subscribers who will suddenly have Hulu on their computers, you said yourself, cable/box remote-users are not computer users - different market, right?

Neither Hulu nor ESPN360 is a "bait-n-switch". In Hulu's case, the discussions have nothing to do with cutting users off from what they already get for free, but rather making new/extended features (such as live feeds and unlimited archival access) available only to cable/satellite subscribers. In case you didn't notice, Hulu already makes certain episodes and clips only available for a limited time before they get pulled. Making live network feeds available to cable/satellite subscribers would serve the same function as a Slingbox, by making their computer and web browser an extension of their cable box at home.

With ESPN360, that channel has always limited access to people who subscribe to certain ISPs, so I don't know where you get this idea that they're some kind of bait-n-switch. Their business model has been clear from the beginning -- you can't get access to their site? Change your ISP or demand that they get on board. I already know people who are switching their ISP in order to get access to ESPN360, and that's exactly what these lock-in deals are intended to do.

And I'm telling you that I am trying to live by example. And it's still none of your business.

If you're going to make self-righteous proclamations about how everybody else should conduct themselves, then maybe you should do more than "try to live by example." That's all I'm saying.

They do. It's simple psychology. At least for most people, sorry Mr.P. For example, if Joe Six Pack regularly watches 15 hours of porn during a typical week. Do you really think he'll be doing that if there's a little red light that blinks from a little recorder on top of his TV? I seriously doubt that. And while that's just an example, I'm pretty sure this goes for milder forms of socially less popular viewing too. Maybe Jerry Springer / UFC / America's Next Top Model won't figure as high on his list that week because he doesn't want big brother to think he's that much of a simpleton. Even Joe Sixpack has a conscience.

A nonsequitur example, since it has nothing to do with how people watch TV. Given that consumer attitudinal surveys (i.e., the ones that do not track actual behavior, but rather preferences) indicate measurable interest by consumers in internet TV, your psychology example would actually bias the results in the opposite direction. If people knew they were being tracked, then presumably they would watch more TV online than they otherwise would.

As I indicated in my previous response, Hulu's ENTIRE viewership this season has been 100+ million episodes served. This, of course, pales by comparison to the 18+ BILLION episodes of prime time programming that the five major broadcast networks alone "serve". And that doesn't even include daytime TV, local content, cable networks, or premium networks. The Ball State findings are consistent with this.

That's because all these figures only record revenue. That seems to be the mantra here: if it doesn't pay, then it's not worthy of measurement. That's the kind of myopic conclusion that keeps the movie and music studios so blind to what's happening on the internet and why they can't seem to stem the tide of people leaving their cash-cow lock-ins.

And your myopic conclusion is that everything should be offered up for free, regardless of whether more lucrative revenue streams are available to content producers.

Fine, but that still gives the impression of fat cat CEOs living it up while the masses starve. It's a lot like Wall Street, and frankly if there's one thing that rankles the mid-level actors and all the service people who work in this industry, it's the few CEOs who are making so much. It probably does more to hurt this industry than any other scandal.

Oh please, you do not know "all the service people who work in this industry" so don't presume to know what rankles them.

Yes, the cold hard cash. But aren't we talking about free content (Hulu)? That's kind of like comparing apples to softballs.

Free content that has direct ties to broadcast networks that have revenue streams, and audience buildup that increases the equity value of the website. And that equity value is what ABC/Disney is prepared to pay into, at a much higher price of entry than NBCU and Fox's investment a couple of years ago.

Well, far be it for me to point this out, but there's traditionally been a huge disparity between "actual behavior" and "revenue." Most of what people do on the internet doesn't cost a dime. Commerce over the internet hardly compares to the rest of the traffic. The idea that it should is also up for debate.

And most of the content that people see on the internet doesn't cost much to produce, and most of the content does not have the kind of audience or production expense that network TV and studio movie productions have.

Not hundreds, but a few more wouldn't hurt. What we've seen in the last 15-20 years is unprecedented consolidation, and what I consider a consistent departure from competition, innovation, and creativity. This leads to a stagnant product, such as (and I know I'm going to hear it about this one), The Dark Knight. A few years from now, TDK will be sold in the $5 bin at Best Buy, along with such other memorable blockbusters as Rocky, X-Men, Die Hard, and of course, Batman I, II, III, IV (what # are we up to now?), and all the other movies that were, in their hay-day, such "Box Office Hits."

In case you didn't know, EVERY movie eventually winds up in the $5 bins. That's just the normal lifecycle of home video releases. It's no different than movie releases garnering the largest audience at the beginning of a theatrical run.

Face it, for all it's special effects, stunts, and gratuitous (and completely unrealistic) violence, TDK is just a rehash of every other Batman movie and Hollywood action plot. That people keep lemming-it up at the box office every few years, is only a testament to our limited capacity for realizing this. We Americans seem incapable of getting off the merry-go-round of being sold the same entertainment in a new shinny package every few years. I consider this a product of our appallingly low collective IQs and schooling, rather than a testament to good movie-making. The Dark Knight is nothing more than escapist familiarity that we desperately try to cling onto for fear of realizing that the real world isn't so idealized. The day we see this (and that day may never come) is going to be revoltingly unwelcome to us all.

And all the while, you continue to buy movie tickets for films that play into this rehashing just like the rest of us.

Fine, I don't disagree with that. But that still doesn't address the difference in budget between TDK and Slumdog Millionaire. Perhaps a few special effects less in TDK would have been possible? How about removing a few more CGI-generated scenes? Well, maybe not, because if you take too many wiz-bang shots out then what do you really have left? An original story? Maaaaayby not. Isn't that a revelation?

So, you really think that TDK could have been made on a Slumdog budget, and garnered just a large an audience as it did? Two completely different stories, and two completely different sets of audience expectations.

And just so you know, Nolan bumped up the budget for TDK because he minimized the use of CGI in favor of more practical effects and live stuntwork. If he wanted to cut corners, he would have actually done more of the action sequences using CGI. And rather than economize by using digital camcorders like a lot of other filmmakers have gone to, Nolan opted to use IMAX 70/15 cameras.

Slumdog Millionaire "cheaped out" on all that stuff, and the audience didn't really "stay away in droves." If you consider that this movie provided the same 2 hours of entertainment for so much less, it makes you wonder how much of an investment TDK really is. And what if TDK would have flopped? Or, I'll be generous, what if it had just barely broken even? That would have been far less of a good investment, no? Now if Slumdog Millionaire had flopped or just broken even, the outlay of cash would have been less, right? So the risk in doing movies like that is far less, so my guess, and this is just a guess, is that movie studios who are thinking about this economy, and the insurance companies that must stand behind them, are going to recommend more movies that are in the Slumdog Millionaire budget. That's just economics.

Low budget movies like Slumdog that make $100 million at the box office are a rarity. Low to moderate budget movies that fail to recoup their production costs at the box office are a dime a dozen. Slumdog generated a nice return on investment, but the return on TDK was more than 5X greater.

You obviously don't realize this (despite my having written this before), but the big budget blockbusters are actually lower risk ventures because those are the types of movies that attract outside investors, can get presold (i.e, theater bids, broadcast rights, etc.) much easier, and have other potential revenue streams. Lower budget movies usually do not have outside investors trying to get on board, nor do they command a high enough profile for the studios to contractually take a larger cut of the box office receipts.

In every recession there's a few numbskulls who continue to live it up and party like everything's plentiful. That's your typical AIG/GM CEO, TDK studio exec, and perhaps even a few people you & I know personally. The sad part is that when they finally see that they're the only ones still on the dance floor, they look that much more pathetic for it. Yes, there are industries that are still doing OK, but even they are only "OK" because of major cutbacks, layoffs, and perhaps a little more wisdom and foresight at the helm. But the more people that are laid off in this country, the more people will also stop going to the movies. I will make this prediction: the next Batman movie will cost less and generate less, yes, far less. And if I'm wrong about this, then you can come back here and chastise me about it all you want.

And like I've been trying to tell you, recessions have historically increased movie theater attendance because moviegoing is the entertainment that people revert back to during hard times. Travel is down, concert attendance is down, all other forms of high end entertainment are down.

The movies?

Well, last weekend set a new April record at the box office -- with movie attendance up more than 60% over last year. I don't think pent up demand for Vin Diesel's return to the Fast and Furious series alone accounts for all of this. January and February also had multiple record breaking weekends, so it's not like this is a flash in the pan, it's a trend that has repeated itself throughout the year so far.

As far as the next Batman movie goes, do you really think that Nolan, Bale, and everybody else that worked on the last two Batman movies are going to suddenly take a paycut, when the most recent installment ranked as the #2 movie of all time? You can make a prediction, but that doesn't mean that it has any basis in fact or logic.

You know. we've heard that every few generations: The common people need the Roman Catholic Church, the nobility, the king/emperor/tzar, the landlord, the factory owner, the Fuhrer, the Junta, Liberal Economics, GWB, the corporation, etc... It is usually followed by: they need us more than they realize, more than they need us, or some such nonsense. Sure it takes a little while for reality to set in, but it always does. I remember how T2 was such a box office hit and that everyone just needed to see it. Well I doubt that movie studio now considers this film one of their crowning achievements. It made them millions, sure, but let's be frank, for all its' super-expensive special effects, action sequences, and box-office drawing actors, it wasn't exactly in the same league as The Color Purple, The English Patient, The Shawshank Redemption, and Crash. The latter are movies that the studios hang their reputations on, even if they cost a fraction of TDK to produce. No, I would say rather that T2, Rambo, The Dark Knight, Star Wars, and yes, even Waterworld, are possible because the low-budget movies give the studios the longevity and resilience to survive. And they do so at much lower risk.

Uh no, in actuality it's the returns from the big blockbusters that subsidize the studios' prestige and vanity projects, most of which lose money. Even those movies on your list like The English Patient and The Color Purple were not cheap to make. I recall that The English Patient cost nearly $100 million, which was an astronomical sum at that time, and IIRC The Color Purple was Stephen Spielberg's most expensive movie to date at the time it was made.

Like I said, check the box office charts and look at which movies top those charts. Studios are simply following the audience. This has nothing to do with whether that's right or wrong, good or bad -- just how it is.

As far as T2 goes, get a concept about which studio actually made the movie before you go on yet another baseless speculative adventure over what they would consider a "crowning achievement."

That still does not explain why people aren't going to $12 college baseball games, $5 high-school football games, and $1 volleyball matches. There's something else going on that has nothing to do with the price of movies and avoiding the topic doesn't make it go away. By the way, I go to concerts regularly, although I'll confess that I've been sitting higher up in the stands this year.

Anecdotal observations don't say much, and if those events don't report attendance figures, you're just guessing about what the actual attendance is. The movie attendance data is a 100% sample that's tracked weekly, so trends can be derived from that.

Ah, so that's your bogey-man. I knew there was a reason why you were getting so upset. Look, I'm not Reisinger; 'don't even know him.

Reisinger is just one of many idiots in the tech press. They're technology fanboys with a computer-centric view of the world, and no clue as to actual consumer behavior.

But I will say that BR is just a temporary medium until downloading ramps up.

So how many years defines "temporary"?

No it won't go away entirely and, like bad pollution, it will probably linger around indefinitely, but it won't be the dominant medium.

The DVD is the most rapidly adopted consumer media format in history, yet it still took 7 years to displace VHS. And yet, Blu-ray's adoption rate is reportedly still running ahead of the DVD. Blu-ray's not even 3 years old.

The price, for all it's vaulted superiority in quality (that only a few people with fancy setups will really care that much about) is still too high.

And the prices are already $3-$5 below where they were a year ago for new releases. Prices will decline as the market matures. Recall that DVDs cost $30+ when they first came out.

Also, the improvement in PQ doesn't take a "fancy setup" to appreciate. Just an HDTV, and nowadays, anybody in the market for a TV is going to wind up with HD capability.

This is especially true for older movies that are being re-released. Yes, there are actually a lot of people who are pissed at having had to buy the VHS, the Laserdisk, the DVD, and now the BR of the same movie. Maybe you won't hear that here, but it's a very real complaint elsewhere.

Who the hell "has to" buy the same movie in all those different formats? If the prices are too high, then don't buy. Just wait for the prices to go down. Already, you're seeing Warner's library releases going as low as $13.

If you don't care for high def, and think that SD is good enough, then buy the DVD. I don't see any reason why anyone would get pissed, given that BD wasn't even an option when most of those movies were originally released on home video. I know that I'm only going to repurchase a small number of essential titles on Blu-ray. Everything else will be new releases or titles that I don't yet have on DVD.

I will also add that if BR rental pricing goes up compared to DVD, then people will become more selective about the movies they rent in that format. Every single household in this country is scaling back, especially on "subscription" services, that's been said enough. My guess is that for many households, saving a few dollars every month on renting fewer or even no more BR disks, is highly likely.

Sounds like you're speaking more for yourself than someone who actually owns a BD player or has home entertainment subscriptions. Speaking for myself (i.e., a BD player owner and a Directv subscriber), I can tell you that I'm cutting back on DVD purchases because I'm now buying Blu-rays. I've already made the upgrade, and there's no way I'll go back to renting DVDs. And I doubt that too many other BD player owners will stop renting BDs and go completely back to DVDs, if BD rentals cost more than DVDs.

And your speculation on "subscription" services is just that. Directv has already indicated that they're seeing an upsurge in package upgrades -- i.e., consumers adding DVR, HD, and/or premium packages. Much like the movies, consumers are retrenching in a recession by shifting more of their spending towards home entertainment. A $10/month service upgrade is a bargain compared to a $50 NBA game or a plane ticket or hotel stay or $70 admission for Disneyland.

I'm glad that Blockbuster is trying to hold on, and perhaps price parity for BR disks compared to DVDs, if they can provide it, is a step in the right direction. But the one thing Blockbuster still isn't doing as well as Netflix is downloads/VOD. I, along with many other people see that as the future of movie rentals. Again, probably not a popular suggestion here on this forum, but it's going to happen nonetheless. That's my opinion, and I'm going to stand by it. I've seen the superiority of BR, and I'm still not buying. I simply don't have that much disposable income right now, and I don't think I'm the only one saying this.

And again, how far out do you project this future? The revenue from Blockbuster alone remains more than 20X the revenue for ALL PPV and downloading options combined. The tech press and the bloggers that hang on their every word seem to obsess far more about downloading than the average consumer does. They reflexively push the downloading angle, regardless of what the market data and actual consumer behavior say.

With BD releases on newer titles now accounting for 15% to 20% of unit sales, you have a proven growth trajectory that the BD format has taken. Downloading/VOD's growth rate hasn't even kept pace with the BD, so how can its future be anywhere close to the near term, when it's not even competing in the present tense?

[nightflier]

Wooch, I am trying very hard to keep my comments general, but every one of your sentences is directed specifically at me, so I'm going to stop the discussion. That said, I'm standing by what I said:

- the movie industry is changing, not just because of the economy,
- many movie studios are spending unsustainable amounts on movies and that cannot continue,
- the changes in viewership have far more factors influencing them than the few that you have pointed out,
- it's not possible to gauge online video streaming, VOD, and downloads just on sales figures because much of it is free,
- your vitriol against the internet/computer users is clouding your understanding of what is really happening out there,
- a very similar myopia is probably shared by the studio execs,
- ticket sales at smaller sports venues are way down (I've involved in the maintenance of several ticketing systems and with the people who manage them - that was not just an "Anecdotal observation" on my part),
- BR is still going to give way to downloads & streaming at some point in the near future,
- and you still don't have any business commenting about my efforts to do things in a socially responsible manner.

By the way, I was in Hollywood supporting the actors and studio workers during the last strike. I have several friends who work in LA, and I was more than willing to support them in their struggle for fair pay and compensation. And if you think they didn't have some serious anger towards the studio execs, then I suggest it's you who doesn't understand this industry. I can't help but see a disturbing parallel arrogance shared by the financial-backers of projects such as TDK and the CEOs on Wall Street. This money-trumps-all mentality is becoming increasingly abhorrent by those of us who don't ride in personal jets, share in those lucrative stock-options and retire with such lofty golden parachutes. Sooner or later, those chickens will also come home to roost.

[Woochifer]

Wooch, I am trying very hard to keep my comments general, but every one of your sentences is directed specifically at me, so I'm going to stop the discussion.

And I'm simply rebutting the many instances where your rhetoric doesn't square with facts.

- the movie industry is changing, not just because of the economy,
- many movie studios are spending unsustainable amounts on movies and that cannot continue,

Yup, the movie industry is changing in that they are getting rid of their quasi-indie divisions, and consolidating operations. The summer tent pole projects are unaffected by this, but the output for "prestige" and vanity projects (which are riskier than big budget blockbusters) will go down considerably.

- the changes in viewership have far more factors influencing them than the few that you have pointed out,

And what I've been pointing out that viewership trends are a lot simpler than all of the unsubstantiated presumptions that you keep inserting into the discussion whenever the market data I bring up doesn't square with your worldview. The Ball State study is a clear instance where a behavioral study is consistent with the market data.

- it's not possible to gauge online video streaming, VOD, and downloads just on sales figures because much of it is free,

My information comparing Hulu's number of episode views versus network viewership had nothing to do with revenues. But, it does illustrate how fractionally small the online audience is compared to the broadcast audience. Stock valuations are often based on hype and expectations of future growth, and Hulu is getting pumped up the same way, with NBCU as the main beneficiary. Would not surprise me to see it spin off and prepare for an IPO in the next year or two.

- your vitriol against the internet/computer users is clouding your understanding of what is really happening out there,

Nope, I'm just seeing the trends for what they actually are, rather than how the tech press wishes they are.

- a very similar myopia is probably shared by the studio execs,

Actually, I see the myopia with the internet/computer users who feel entitled to having all of their movies, music, and TV programs for free. The studio execs have an actual business to run, and giving content away for free without any replacement revenue stream elsewhere is the surest way of running that business into the ground.

- ticket sales at smaller sports venues are way down (I've involved in the maintenance of several ticketing systems and with the people who manage them - that was not just an "Anecdotal observation" on my part),

So, that just means even more entertainment outings are getting shifted to movie theaters.

- BR is still going to give way to downloads & streaming at some point in the near future,

Again, what do you define as "near future"? If the rate of growth for movie downloading isn't even keeping up with BR growth, then how's it even mathematically possible for BD to "give way"? Once again, you're mistakenly equating bias and wishful thinking with actual market behavior.

- and you still don't have any business commenting about my efforts to do things in a socially responsible manner.

Self-righteous pontificating is always going to invite comments. If it's nobody else's business, then don't make it anyone's business.

By the way, I was in Hollywood supporting the actors and studio workers during the last strike. I have several friends who work in LA, and I was more than willing to support them in their struggle for fair pay and compensation. And if you think they didn't have some serious anger towards the studio execs, then I suggest it's you who doesn't understand this industry.

Where do I indicate that the rank and file don't have issues towards management? I've never said that. I'm merely pointing out that movie budgets aren't likely to go down anytime soon, and executive pay is only one part of the escalation in movie production costs. Unlike in other industries and the economy as a whole where wages have remained stagnant over the past decade, the union jobs in Hollywood have seen healthy wage increases. I have no problem with that, but if you think these hard fought union contracts don't also increase production costs and it's all the CEO's fault, then you're not seeing the big picture where all costs and revenues are taken into account.

[nightflier]

Self-righteous pontificating is always going to invite comments. If it's nobody else's business, then don't make it anyone's business.

I could go on debating each point and the obvious biases, but on the above topic, you were actually the one who made it an issue. Just go back a few posts and check what you wrote.

Anyhow, this discussion is over.

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=nightflier]I could go on debating each point and the obvious biases, but on the above topic, you were actually the one who made it an issue. Just go back a few posts and check what you wrote.

Anyhow, this discussion is over.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Its a little more complex with rich and I.
He is a relative "newbie" to this stuff, while I HAVE BEEN IN AUDIO OF SOME KIND FOR 40 ODD YEARS.
I guess he thinks I am some kind of smartass because I call him on crap.
He finally figured out that I was right about seperate amps, and about how his B&W
speakers would really shine with more than the cheap receiver he was running them on.
Of course my input had nothing to do with this revelation.
I have a cousin just like him, you cant tell him anything either.
If you do he will come back later like a lightbulb went off and he "figured" out this great new idea, never mind that its the same one you suggested a week ago.
This same cousin was trying to tell me how to download a file one day, he had just learned how and was trying to tell me.
He didnt know so nobody else knew, and he couldnt understand why I got mad at his condescending attitude.
Even after I explained that I had built my last three computers, had been on the net for years, and had forgotten more than he ever would know, he still went on about downloading files, he knew one way of doing it, I was using a DIFFERENT one.
But he just had to feel superior to me in some way.
Its this same attitude that comes from a lot of yankees like Rich, they dont understand that just because you were born south of the Mason Dixon line doesnt mean you are a "dumbass" as he puts it.
He constantly posts sterotypes about people in my part of the country.
To which I will just quote a famous comedian from my part of the world,
when insulted by a new yorker, he replied...
"I get 200 channels", you get 5, and you call me a hick".

I about puked when I read this. You're a walking contradiction dumbass. I post stereotypes about people in your part of the country?

I wouldnt exactly call it "entertaining" to be called a "dumbass" by a carpetbagger.

How many times have I been referred to that way by you, ex-cop? That's just one example. If I need to I'll point out another 1,000 contradictions by you. The rest of this crap just isn't worth my time.

[pixelthis]

I about puked when I read this. You're a walking contradiction dumbass. I post stereotypes about people in your part of the country?


How many times have I been referred to that way by you, ex-cop? That's just one example. If I need to I'll point out another 1,000 contradictions by you. The rest of this crap just isn't worth my time.

USUALLY in response to being called a quote "dumbass" and worse by you.
DONT DISH IT OUT if you can't take it.
So Richie crawls out from under whatever rock he's been hiding under.
And it was almost getting civilized around here.
I guess between you "dream job" at TEXAS INSTRUMENTS and your current job at mickey D'S you couldn't afford an internet connection.

[Rich-n-Texas]

USUALLY in response to being called a quote "dumbass" and worse by you.

You started it.

B!tch please dumbass. So you're the newly appointed "big man on campus" around here now? This forum was a lot more "civilized" before you came along.

I guess between you "dream job" at TEXAS INSTRUMENTS and your current job at mickey D'S you couldn't afford an internet connection.

Yeah, and going from ex-cop to nightime security guard looking at granny's all night is real dreamy huh? Doesn't surprise me one bit that you don't know the first thing about ethics and working within a culture that stands on it's integrity, inclusion and innovation. That's the standard I live my working life by. How 'bout you son?

[pixelthis]

You started it.

B!tch please dumbass. So you're the newly appointed "big man on campus" around here now? This forum was a lot more "civilized" before you came along.

Yeah, and going from ex-cop to nightime security guard looking at granny's all night is real dreamy huh? Doesn't surprise me one bit that you don't know the first thing about ethics and working within a culture that stands on it's integrity, inclusion and innovation. That's the standard I live my working life by. How 'bout you son?

Its called retirement, something you will never hold a job long enough to attain,
and maybe the first thing you think of when having a closed circuit camera system in front of you is "looking at grannys" but its not my cup of tea.

[Rich-n-Texas]

What's called retirement dumbass? There you go again twisting the argument in an attempt to make yourself look like a victim here. If you're getting in your broken down pickup truck, driving to the Geriatrics ward, sitting in front of a camera monitor that's spying granny, and collecting a salary, how is that retirement?

I heard on the news a couple of weeks ago that Blockbuster has a plan in the works to start competing with... who is it, Red Box to setup kiosks in stores and make STB's available. Doesn't sound like Blockbuster wants to "call it quits" now does it?

[pixelthis]

What's called retirement dumbass? There you go again twisting the argument in an attempt to make yourself look like a victim here. If you're getting in your broken down pickup truck, driving to the Geriatrics ward, sitting in front of a camera monitor that's spying granny, and collecting a salary, how is that retirement?

I heard on the news a couple of weeks ago that Blockbuster has a plan in the works to start competing with... who is it, Red Box to setup kiosks in stores and make STB's available. Doesn't sound like Blockbuster wants to "call it quits" now does it?

It sounds like they are looking for a life perserver to bail on the failed form factor of renting
movies at the store.
But of course you wouldn't understand the actions of a company desperatly looking for a new cash cow as their old one lays dying.
A bit too subtle for you to discern I suppose.
AND I work at a regional medical center with over two hundred cameras, I work in the control room and have twenty guards under my direct control.
Beats your job of sweeping the floor at TEXAS INSTRUMENTS.

[Rich-n-Texas]

What a ****in loser you are. Blockbuster's trying to stay competitive just like any other business these days dumbass. Didn't you say earlier in this thread they were dead? Are you now back tracking by saying they're "looking for a life preserver"? Twist it around dumbass... classic.

[Mr Peabody]

Hey, if Captain Jack can come back to life, so can Blockbuster.