Just needed something to kick me up to the TV.com 20th level!

Nothing to see, here!

Move along . . . move along!

Unfortunately, TV.com has become so difficult to view and use, that I just don't have the desire to be on it, anymore. So, except to visit for occasional research, this will probably be my final entry. :,(

(BTW, per my previous blogs, I still haven't been in a Burger King, though I'll grant that they've toned down the absurd/violent/racist commercials).

[UPDATE Oct 11, 2011]

I missed my 5th TV.com anniversary; sorry!
Anyway, Burger King has decided to dethrone the King
(see my blog comment for details),
but, I'm not taking chances that their next series of ads is even worse.
If they can keep their promo nose clean,
I'll be back in their restaurants in 2/2012 (maybe!).

I can't believe it.

In my original blog on this subject (http://www.tv.com/users/skaizun/profile.php?action=show_blog&entry=m-100-25392963&tag=blog;title), I stated that as long as BK kept up their insane commercials, I would not patronize them. But, they kept going, so, I added that if BK behaved itself for a full year, I would return. It went nearly 10 months without a vapid, crude, sophomoric, violent, bizarre, ad, and then, tonight, inexplicably, they showed the King storming through a business office, smashing through windows, being chased by mental institution orderlies . . . think about this: BK advertisers and owners actually approved an ad that shows that their own mascot is insane.

Never mind that I have not missed eating there (and they, probably, have not missed me), but, as long as they continue their absurd, unfunny, ads, I will refrain from dining at BK. Do they truly believe that the drunk, college, frat boys, of whom these ads are clearly aimed at (they can't be aimed at intelligent people . . . or the witless, for that matter, who, in their state of mind, probably take it seriously), are laughing or enjoying these kinds of ads, or even thinking to themselves, "Golly, I simply MUST go to BK"? Yeah, right.

Congratulations, BK! I put you on a one-year parole, but you made it only 10 months. Obviously, you haven't learned your lesson, so I am now doubling your punishment to two years from the last time that I see an ad that has no redeeming features whatsoever, which, currently, means February 22, 2012. During that time, I will continue to enjoy your competitors' products, and won't miss you in the slightest (I have come to realize that both Arby's and Hardees have superior products at equitable prices); of course, the date will be pushed out each time I see another vile ad.

Whether or not anyone who reads this feels the same way is up to them, but I know that I have shown the light to a few people.

My new (and temporary) avatar is actually from the Pentagon's latest reconnaissance photo of Bin Laden, which explains why he hasn't been caught, yet.

Please . . . show this photo to all your friends, and, with any luck, we'll catch the bastard, and be able to bring our troops home to enjoy the remainder of the year knowing that he won't be getting any treats, any time soon! As for that ticking "trick" with his name on it, think of it as an early Al-Hijira present!

Have a safe and happy Halloween!

May 1, 2011 - - Rest in Pieces.

I can't believe I've been on TV.com for 3 years, today!

That's the leather (traditional) or glass (modern) anniversary,
so I'm expecting everyone to chip-in for a new leather-wrapped HD plasma TV,
and deliver it to my home by the end of next week!

I'll settle for a leather-wrapped tennis racquet with nylon (close enough to glass!) strings!

Thanks! You're the best!!! ;)

I've noticed over the past couple of years, the propensity of bloggers on many websites, including TV.com, to ask inane or incredibly vague questions, which, for some reason, receive far more responses than intelligently worded questions. At first, I presumed it's because people are naturally curious and/or helpful, and want to see what the question really means, by looking at the "details", which are usually hidden from view, until the surfer/respondent clicks on the vague question's link.

For example, in a recent TV.com forum for "Futurama", the topic question was "Will it be the same?" If you had no idea what "Futurama" was or didn't know about the current situation surrounding that show, you'd probably say, "Who cares?", or, at the very least, "What the heck is he/she talking about?", and move on to the next thread, or realize that you're wasting your life on the computer, and go outside and play! ;)

Another one is in TV.com's Star Trek: The Next Generation: "Does Anyone Know?" I'm not kidding. That's the question! Of course, if you deign to read the newb's question, he/she asks about unknown (to him/her) ST titles, which a respondent says are the names of ST-based videos. Why couldn't the asker simply write, "Does anyone know to what these ST titles refer?" Why? Because a reasonable respondent would have said, "You did a web search for a character from the show, but didn't think to search for the titles in question???" Clearly, the newb couldn't care less about the real question, and was looking for just such responses, in hopes of getting the respondents or even themselves moderated (there are some people who get off on that kind of thing, primarily because they have no life beyond their virtual one).

Instead, most people - - intelligent or otherwise - - would tend to be overcome by a wave of curiosity, and want to know more. It's similar to asking a politician a very specific question, and then getting unrelated or irrelevant rhetoric in return (great alliteration, eh?), and then saying, "Yup, I agree! I'm voting for him/her!", even though no real answer or opinion was given.

Here's a simple test: Which question would you be more likely to respond to, whether or not you knew the answer?

1) How does Einstein's famous theory relate energy to mass?

2) What's this theory about?

I'm willing to bet that most readers would ignore the first, incredibly specific, one, believing it to be too complex or obvious to bother responding, while the second one has so little information, that one can't help but be intrigued and want to see more. Advertising/marketing at its best! Don't believe me? Then why did you read this blog? It has a ridiculously vague, if not inane, question, which could refer to anything and everything! Any intelligent person would/should simply ignore it for being unworthy of their attention (i.e., if the writer can't ask a direct question, how can respondents possibly give a direct answer? Can you imagine what a classroom would be like if every student in every classroom asked only vague, unanswerable questions?). But, if I had written the more accurate and specific, "Why do bloggers write vague questions?", your response probably would have been, "Who cares?", and you would have moved on.

I did a bit of unscientific research on the web: The average, intelligently worded question asked on question-and-answer websites (which begs the question, why in the world are there so many of them? Can't folks ask a question, get an answer, and be done with it? But, I digress . . . ) receives one or two equally intelligent answers, with, on rare occasion, one trollish answer, usually asked by a newbie to that site (e.g., "I don't know" or "Who cares?"). But, absurd and vague questions, such as "Plz hlp me!!!!" (seriously!) and "Am I doing the right thing?", receive, on average, 5-6 "good" answers, with one or two trollish ones thrown in. Astonishing!!!

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but I am guilty of responding to inane/vague questions. I keep saying to myself, "Geez! I know all they want is attention (and are getting it!), but why do I feel so compelled to respond to such nonsense???" Is it because I think I'm more intelligent than the person who asked the question, and want to pat his/her head and say, "There, there . . . let Daddy help you?" And, more importantly, since most of the people asking such are children and teens with nothing better to do, it seems to me that they would make the perfect politician or marketing executive, if their energies were redirected.

Gangs thrive where there are no police and people are too frightened to speak up. Websites with so-called moderators will often tell those who report such vague questions, et al., to chill, rather than recognize the validity of the "citizen-cop" (it has happened to me on this and other websites; recently, I even got moderated on this site for reporting a member! It's one thing to say, "chill"; it's quite another to be moderated for trying to be helpful. There'd be less crime on the streets if every decent person spoke up. Likewise, this recent moderation only makes me feel that my input is unworthy, unhelpful, and unwanted, which has, essentially, frozen me with fear that I, a self-professed "good guy", might be cast in the same light as a troll or a mere tattler).

So, I am putting my foot down! I will not respond to any more vague or inane or emotionally charged or childish questions or forum threads, in the hopes that the trolls and ne'er-do-wells will either shape up or ship-out! Yeah, I know: I'm living in a fool's paradise, but, I can only hope that others will read this, and be moved to act in a similar fashion, in the hopes of making the web a better place! (per my "Burger King" blog, BK has seemed to eliminate its violent, nonsensical ads; I'd like to think that I had something to do with that, so who knows what I might accomplish with this blog?) Ooh! There's a forum thread asking, "What's this all about?" I think I know the answer to that one!!! I can't wait to help!!! ;)

While not the first TV-based stamp issued by the US Postal Service, this one has a lot going for it, in that these classic TV shows were the forerunner of everything that followed them (no wonder the imitators pale by comparison!). My admiration for this stamp sheet has nothing to do with the fact that my avatar is based on one of the stamps (can you guess which one?, he asked sardonically!).

Official USPS news release: http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/pr09_070.htm

View and order from USPS: http://shop.usps.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10152&storeId=10001&categoryId=11810&productId=48753&langId=-1&WT.ac=48753

Loathe as I am to give free advertising to any company, even if in a negative fashion, I feel compelled to write about the multiple, deplorable, commercials aired by Burger King since 2008:

The BK mascot (usually a real person wearing a mask and costume) is 'creepy' on a par with circus clowns terrifying toddlers. Not being a toddler, I find the appearance of the mascot in odd situations (e.g., seen in a bedroom hovering over a sleeping man) to be mind-numbingly frightening, appalling, eerie, and . . . well, you can pull out your thesaurus and find your own synonyms!

But, for the past year or so, BK has run ads that go beyond merely raising goosebumps. BK has shown moms in an SUV attempting to run over the mascot (which, I heartily applaud on a personal level, but deplore on a practical level, because I know that some idiot is going to attempt to imitate it, not to mention that it sends a very bad signal to children that, as long as mom is doing it, it's okay to commit attempted homicide). The latest commercial shows a couple at a BK drive-thru window finishing their order, when, suddenly, their car is struck from behind and pushed out of the way by a reckless driver who 'simply' wants to order, and is not patient enough to wait his turn. Does this country, much less world, need another road rager?

I know that the teens who watch these commercials chuckle with glee, but I am concerned that they feel it is acceptable behavior (most of them think that faux-wrestling and Hannah Montana are real, and that the likes of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears are positive role models), and will try to imitate it (there have already been incidents of road rage and assaults and battery at drive-thrus, so car-ramming will just be another in a slew of the de-evolution of manners, if not intelligence).

I have to wonder what is going through the obviously adolescent minds of the advertisers' producers, much less those at the upper-echelons of BK who approved such ads. I know that you're thinking,'Well, it got you to pay attention, didn't it?' But, what good is that attention if all it accomplished was my avoiding BK - - one of my favorite fast-food eateries - - altogether as a form of protest, however meaningless it is, except to BK's competitors, of course!

As the worst set of commercials on the air, I would beg Burger King to fire the production company for even suggesting the repulsive mascot and absurd ads; I would further ask shareholders to oust the entire Board for approving them.

And, in case you're wondering, complaints sent to BK via the USPS have gone unanswered, but please feel free to write your own missive to:

Burger King Corporate HQ
5505 Blue Lagoon Drive
Miami, FL 33126

ADDENDUM 1: The latest BK commercial, which I first saw on April 28, 2008, shows a driver leaping out of his moving car to get a new BK sandwich. The unmanned car keeps rolling through the BK parking lot, eventually crashing into a parked car. Wonderful imagery living up (or is it down? ) to BK's current deplorable advertising standards.

ADDENDUM 2: In conjunction with the latest "Indiana Jones" flick,
Burger King has created a tie-in website called "bkindy.com".
Now, most folks might interpret that as
"Burger King - Indy (short for Indiana)".
However, in light of this blog's premise, I'd like to suggest
that it more appropriately spells out "Be Kind . . . Why???"

ADDENDUM 3: The current BK commercial shows some rap star doing something for BK (you may have noticed that I no longer pay too much attention to the details of any BK commercial anymore!), which causes people to rush into the fast food joint, crushing everything in their path. Wow! Whodathunk that rap promotes violence? Peace out, yo!

ADDENDUM 4: It only just occurred to me that the vast majority of the people acting like morons in the BK commercials are white males. Just imagine the uproar if the mascot being run over were black, or if a black driver tried to run over the white BK mascot, or a black crashed his car into the rear of another vehicle. The only non-white who was involved in any of the aforementioned absurd actions, was a black, female, passenger in the "mom" car. However, she doesn't count, since she wasn't in control of the vehicle. The black rapper in Addendum 3, above, wasn't directly the cause of any mayhem, so he doesn't count, either.

ADDENDUM 5: (Aug 14, 2008 ) I have noticed that BK has not had a "violent" ad in the last month or so. If it continues its "good" behavior for one year as of last month (July 1, 2008 ), then I will deign to resume gracing their "castles" with my presence! Such is the "holy grail" I have tasked upon thee, Burger King! Doest thou take the gauntlet and bear thyself to the righteous path? Methinkst not!

ADDENDUM 6: (Sept 9, 2008 ) Today, BK saw fit to run new ads showing their creepy mascot nearly being run down while trying to put money into people's pockets (it's like a pickpocket in reverse; sort of like Robin Hood, minus the dignity). So, per ADDENDUM 5, above, the new target date is August 1, 2009, but, quite frankly, I'm getting tired of writing these ADDENDUM's, especially as I seriously doubt that BK will ever live up to its self-annointed, kingly, role, so this will be the last one, which means, unfortunately, that I will never enjoy BK ever again. Oh, well! Who's up for Arby's or McD's or Shoney's or . . . (get it, BK? There are PLENTY of alternatives out there!)

ADDENDUM 7: (Nov 3, 2008 ) BK now has a white male wandering into a busy street oblivious to all but his BK meal. Imagine the hilarity of the havoc he wreaks. Great lesson for the kiddies, eh? (that's extreme sarcasm, in case anyone missed it!)

ADDENDUM 8: (April 24, 2009) BK commercials now show hotties in hot-pants "dancing" to a parody of the (in?)famous rap song, "Baby Got Back", where "I like big butts..." becomes "I like square butts..." in conjunction with something having to do with the wildly popular kiddie show, "Sponge Bob Square Pants". Get it? SQUARE butts with SQUARE Pants? Oh, how the jocularity of the juxtaposition of girls having square-shaped derrieres just makes me want to run out and get a hamburger! Or not. Seriously, BK! What is going through your mind when you come up with these ads? Or are you only researching them using 14 year old boys? (or, worse, are the ads being produced by a 14 year old boy???) Search the 'net! Nobody thinks your ads are amusing in the slightest, and I suspect the only ones laughing all the way to the bank are the agencies you hired to come up with such lame excuses for commercials! Are you THAT desperate to disenfranchise (ironic choice of words, eh?) EVERYONE???

P.S. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have been enjoying your competitor's menus for over a year, now (refer to Addendum 1).

Need a new TV.com avatar?

Visit http://www.geocities.com/nafis121/TVCOM/index.htm

{{{Yahoo has decided to remove Geocities webhosting in October 2009. According to the site's statistics, NOBODY has viewed the page EVER (other than me, of course!), so it will NOT be moved to another site, and this blog entry will be removed when that happens! Sorry, kids!}}}

I don't take requests, so please don't PM me or leave a "Comment" requesting one, but I may add to them on rare occasion, so, check-out the above page every few months or so! But, if you use one of them, please let me know by leaving a "Comment"!