Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers unless aired)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

    I finally had the chance to sit down and watch it last night. That was a great episode. The entrance of the Galactica onto New Caprica was absolutely ingenius. Everything about this episode was spot on brilliant.
    Take me out to the black, tell 'em I ain't coming back. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

      Eh. Came off as a mediocre TNG ep to me.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

        Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
        Eh. Came off as a mediocre TNG ep to me.
        Not sorry I missed it then.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

          I thought it was good. I did do a lot to move the storyline along.
          PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

            A mediocre ep. of BSG is a good to great ep. of television. Not a lot of progress in the story this week, but it makes me think less of a few characters.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

              *bump*

              Good episode yesterday.
              PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

                Originally posted by DrBadd01 View Post
                *bump*

                Good episode yesterday.
                Great episode. The rationale for the Cylons coming back and trying to commoit genocide was because they figured humans would eventually get around to doing it to them.

                Here. we're put in the same position and we decide to do the exact same thing. I though Adama was frighteningly non-commital. The humas keep seeking lower and lower, basing their decisions on fear and vengence. Very interesting.
                Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

                  Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
                  Great episode. The rationale for the Cylons coming back and trying to commoit genocide was because they figured humans would eventually get around to doing it to them.

                  Here. we're put in the same position and we decide to do the exact same thing. I though Adama was frighteningly non-commital. The humas keep seeking lower and lower, basing their decisions on fear and vengence. Very interesting.
                  On that note Helo is becoming a favoritte character of mine
                  PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

                    I thought this was a good, short read on BSG:

                    http://www.slate.com/id/2154625/

                    Captain's LogWant to understand Battlestar Galactica? Eavesdrop on its writers.
                    By Adam Rogers
                    Posted Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006, at 5:24 PM ET

                    Ronald D. Moore. Click image to expand.Battlestar Galactica writer and executive producer Ronald D. Moore
                    Ronald D. Moore, the executive producer of Battlestar Galactica, has created a great show with a goofy title. The title isn't his fault, of course—he's remaking a crappy 1970s sci-fi relic—and, in any case, it lured in an audience of geeks who will watch anything with the word star in the title. A few months ago, Moore told me (and, more recently, Entertainment Weekly's Jeff Jensen) that the geeky title means a swath of Battlestar's potential audience doesn't tune in.

                    Whether as fan service or a hunt for those missing viewers, Moore has done Herculean labors to promote his show. He blogs and he podcasts DVD-like audio commentary tracks for every episode; die-hards painstakingly synchronize their iPods and TiVos every week. But if you really want to understand what makes Battlestar Galactica great, scroll through the iTunes list to the podcasts called "Battlestar Galactica Writers Meeting." These are four hours of unedited recordings from the writers' room, and they're fascinating, even for the uninitiated. The podcasts are like a master class in how to make good television.

                    For most of those four hours, writers David Weddle and Bradley Thompson are working on an episode called "Scar" (which aired Feb. 6), presenting their detailed outline of the episode to Moore, the show runner. (The process is called "breaking.") Moore made his bones working on Star Trek spinoffs, which he says had an almost totalitarian approach to breaking and story development. Trek characters weren't allowed to have flaws or conflicts, and almost every story was external—it originated as a mission from Starfleet or as a complication posed by some visitor. As a result, Trek plots don't hold up; shows from the last 20 years seem stilted and predictable. BSG is rigorous about "breaking" stories, too, but to the opposite end. Every show is internally directed and driven by character, by conflict. There are no aliens with weird foreheads or pointy ears on the Galactica—just imperfect people in extraordinary circumstances.

                    While breaking "Scar," the writers get stuck on a plot point. The Galactica is a sort of aircraft carrier in space, home to dozens of fighter pilots; Weddle and Thompson's story is about how those pilots deal with facing an unbeatable, Red Baron-like enemy. The writers' problem is, why does it make sense that the Galactica has to stay in one place while one of the bad guys—they're called Cylons—picks off its fighters? Why doesn't the Galactica just, you know, fly away?

                    One writer suggests that they're fixing the engines (a true standby of science fiction, one that served Star Trek for decades). Another writer proposes that Galactica's fighters—called Vipers—are vulnerable because they're flying attenuated, long-distance patrols. Moore eventually decides that the fleet must have manufacturing facilities, but needs raw material, some magic metal for building Vipers found only where the ship is stuck. "Then it can influence the conversations in the ready room," Moore says, "because of the psychological toll on the pilots. Now their machines are more valuable than they are."

                    But the podcasts are about more than geeky plot points. While the BSG writers break the story, they also bare their souls. And it's here that the podcasts move from a peek at the sausage-making process to great, almost intimate, radio drama. I don't recognize any of the writers' voices except for Moore's, but it takes all of 20 minutes for their personalities to shine through. One falls back on Hollywood shorthand, blazing through a string of references to other TV shows and movies—The Right Stuff, The Getaway, and so on. Another turns to military history for inspiration, referencing Royal Navy traditions and heavy drinking among Vietnam-era pilots. (So that's why Starbuck, one of the main characters, takes that crazy, boozy dive off a barroom table.) Family stories get told, like how a writer's salesman father superstitiously avoided ever putting his hat on a hotel-room bed. The writers have all become characters in their own story, the particulars of which dribble into the episodes.

                    The last hour of the podcasts consists of a planning meeting, and the writers go completely wild. Moore tosses out the idea of doing an episode told from the point of view of two of the killer androids. Then, the whole group tries to figure out the Cylons' deeper motivations via a rapid-fire series of metaphors. The Cylons are Nazis, hell-bent on solving the Human Question. The Cylons are Jews, trying to defend Israel. The Cylons are U.S. troops in Iraq, caught off guard by an uprising.

                    Building in all that symbolism turns out to be complicated—who's representing what changes from week to week, from scene to scene. In just eight episodes, the current season has morphed humans from Iraqi-style insurgents into post-apartheid South Africans, complete with a truth and reconciliation commission. I once heard a media-studies professor claim that the best, most adult television shows embrace cognitive dissonance as a storytelling tool. He was talking about the old cop show Hill Street Blues, but I understood him to mean that characters and situations seem more "real" if they have an ambiguous, or situational, alignment on the grid from Dungeons & Dragons (good versus evil, lawful versus chaotic). I realize I'm mixing my geek metaphors here, but the podcasts illustrate the ambiguity of the Battlestar Galactica approach: There's no single political subtext. The show has all the subtexts at once.

                    Eventually, Moore goes on a riff that tees up all the narrative pitch and yaw of the end of Season 2, which concluded with a seriously ballsy move: jumping the whole story forward a year in an instant—forcing viewers, as Moore puts it, "to play catch-up, which I think is really fun." Other TV shows have built extended story arcs—Chris Carter did it on The X-Files, and we might charitably assume that J.J. Abrams knows what's really happening on the Lost island. But actually hearing a producer of Moore's caliber work through the process is thrilling, because he relies on the improvisational qualities of the writers' room. Maybe he has no idea whether his human characters will ever find the (possibly mythical) Earth. It doesn't matter. He and his writers are building a world to live in, not a theory to unravel. It's a world that does more than transcend his show's silly title. It actually redeems it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

                      Awesome post. They really go into depth as to some of the symbolism in BSG. I knew their was a reason I liked this show.
                      PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

                        http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6396724.html

                        'Battlestar Galactica’ Jumping to Sundays
                        By R. Thomas Umstead 12/4/2006

                        Next month, Sci Fi Channel will dock its flagship series Battlestar Galactica in another television galaxy: Sunday nights.

                        After two and half seasons of anchoring the network’s popular Friday night original-series block, Sci Fi will move the last 10 episodes of the show’s season to TV’s busiest night, starting Jan. 21. The scheduling change is a means to avoid what network executive vice president and general manger David Howe says is increased competition in the science-fiction genre from broadcast shows like CBS’s Ghost Whisperer, as well as widespread recording of the series.

                        But Battlestar will wind up squaring off against Without a Trace and other stiff competition from cable and broadcast networks on arguably the most competitive night of the week.

                        Still, Howe believes the show will thrive in its new time slot, when it will face little or no direct genre competition from linear networks.

                        “We’re confident that the audience will follow on a Sunday night and will create a powerful appointment-to-view block which will hold its own against what is perceived to be tougher competition, but in fact is less tough in terms of direct, head-to-head genre competition,” he said.

                        This fall, Sci Fi took a chance by launching for the first time a fresh round of episodes from original series into the teeth of the broadcast season. But in looking to establish a Friday night fall tentpole, Battlestar was also disengaged from the Stargate series that had accompanied it in the past.

                        TIME-SHIFTED STRUGGLES

                        Sci Fi’s highest-rated original scripted series has struggled during the first half of its third season, which began Oct. 6 and ends Dec. 15. Through Nov. 17, the show’s premiere installments averaged a 1.4 household rating and 1.8 million viewers, well below the 2.1 rating and 2.4 million viewers the show attracted during the 10-episode first half of its sophomore season from July to September 2005, and the 1.9/2.1 million during its 10-installment second half from January to March 2006.

                        But Howe said the program’s performance is skewed because of heavy digital video recorder action — a quarter of its viewing is time-shifted, according to Howe.

                        With DVR viewing factored in, the show has averaged a 1.8 household rating and 2.25 million viewers through Nov. 10 and has recorded a 2% gain to 1.4 million of Sci Fi’s target audience of adults 18 to 49, compared with the show’s full second season.

                        Heavy DVR usage among younger viewers aside, Battlestar has also taken some hits from a pair of broadcast shows that touch the genre.

                        “Friday has become much more competitive,” Howe said. “There are more original and scripted shows that have been scheduled against us like [CBS] Ghost Whisperer which is very close to us in terms of genre and Numbers which is very close to us in demo. That has affected us more that we would have liked.”

                        Another Friday factor: the absence of new episodes of Stargate SG-1 and its spinoff Stargate Atlantis, and the millions of viewers they drew to Sci Fi and Battlestar on that night.

                        On Sundays, Dresden Files, the network’s new supernatural detective series, will serve as Battlestar’s lead-in.

                        FRIDAYS ORIGINAL VIABLE

                        Howe added the network isn’t abandoning Friday night as an original series destination. Despite its struggles, overall the network’s primetime lineup — which includes Dr. Who at 8 p.m., Battlestar at 9 p.m. and Dr. Who and Stargate repeats, has shown ratings increases over the same period last year.

                        For the fourth quarter to date, the network averaged a 1.2 rating from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Fridays, up 50% over the 0.6 rating for the same period last year, when Sci Fi was largely airing series encores that night in primetime. Viewership is up 89% among adults 18 to 49 (810,000 vs. 429,000) and 82% among adults 25 to 54 (932,000 vs. 512,000) during the time period.

                        In second quarter, Sci Fi will air the final episodes of the 10th and final season of Stargate SG-1, as well as new episodes of Stargate Atlantis.

                        In addition, the network will replace Battlestar at 10 p.m. with a new show, Painkiller Jane — a series based on the invincible comic book superheroine.

                        SIZING UP THE COMPETITION

                        Howe wouldn’t rule out a return of Battlestar to Fridays in the future, depending on the night’s competition and the series’ performance on Sundays.

                        For now, Battlestar and Dresden Files will do battle against heavy competition from ABC’s Desperate Housewives at 9 p.m. and Brothers and Sisters at 10 p.m., as well as CBS’ Without A Trace at 10 p.m.

                        Sci Fi will also vie against VH1’s popular Sunday-night block of youth-targeted “Celebreality” fare, although it won’t have to endure another season of VH1’s most successful reality series Flavor Of Love, which will not return for a third season.
                        I can live with the change, but I hope this doesn't point to a future cancellation before the story is over. My guess is that if it's not canceled, it will end with Season 5.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

                          Anyone know where I can track down last week's episode online? I'm dying to watch it before this week's episode.
                          Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)

                            At the very least, you could buy it on itunes (I think for $2). If you're looking for something free, well... I don't think I should say anything given your profession.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)



                              I find it funny that SciFi says that BSG is a victim of DVR's and that “Friday has become much more competitive," yet when SG1 was experiancing the SAME problems they were saying that it was because of the series itself. Talk about being biased.

                              At least the article gets it right when they say that "the absence of new episodes of Stargate SG-1 and its spinoff Stargate Atlantis, and the millions of viewers they drew to Sci Fi and Battlestar on that night" is a factor. If only SciFi would get their heads out of the sand and realize that as good as BSG is ( I am definetly hooked), that a big reason for its success is the Stargate franchise, the franchise they have stabbed in the back by canceling SG1.



                              In other news I will still watch on Sunday.
                              PACER FAN ON STRIKE!!!-The moment the Pacers fire Larry Bird I will cheer for them again.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Battle Star Gallactica Season 3 (No Spoilers)



                                Still don't like this Sunday move.

                                Anyway, I know this is probably splitting hairs (no pun intended), but does anyone else think Baltar's beard was to better draw a parallel with Saddam? Obviously's last night's ep was all about the morality of torture, and next week we get the show trial. Obviously it was shot beforehand, but Zarek's points reminded me of what happened with Saddam's execution.

                                Thoughts?
                                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X