Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » What really killed Enterprise
What really killed Enterprise [message #20517] Mo, 25 April 2005 02:55
Bo Raxo  
In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings, I've never
seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long commercial breaks.

The standard break for years was two minutes. Most shows now do three or
four minutes breaks, sometimes five.

Enterprise regularly has seven or eight minute breaks. And not just at the
half-hour, but the ones in between as well. That's way too long to expect
viewers to sit there twiddling their...well, we'll go with thumbs.

Many hard-core fans are the most likely types to Tivo or tape, so some of
you might not notice. But it's really annoying if you try to watch the show
in real-time, and even a long-time fan/geek like me starts flipping around
after five minutes of ads for crappy cars I wouldn't be caught dead in.


Bo Raxo
--
"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill
Re: What Really Killed Enterprise [message #20545 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 05:54
Fred Ellis  
Bo Raxo wrote:
>
> In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings, I've never
> seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long commercial breaks.
>
> The standard break for years was two minutes. Most shows now do three or
> four minutes breaks, sometimes five.
>
> Enterprise regularly has seven or eight minute breaks. And not just at the
> half-hour, but the ones in between as well. That's way too long to expect
> viewers to sit there twiddling their...well, we'll go with thumbs.
>
> Many hard-core fans are the most likely types to Tivo or tape, so some of
> you might not notice. But it's really annoying if you try to watch the show
> in real-time, and even a long-time fan/geek like me starts flipping around
> after five minutes of ads for crappy cars I wouldn't be caught dead in.
>
> Bo Raxo

I gave up watching TV shows in real time many years ago. Everything I
watch is recorded first then watched at my leisure. When watching a
show I recorded and a commerical comes on I hit the old 'CS Skip' button
on the remote. A few clicks of the button and I'm back to the show
without having to watch all those commericals. To make sure I don't
miss any shows I have 3 DVD recorders and 1 VHS tape recorder (that I
have for backup).


Fred Ellis
--
Who do you serve. . . . And who do you trust?
(To e-mail me, remove the X from my address)
Re: What Really Killed Enterprise [message #20546 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 06:38
Bo Raxo  
"Fred Ellis" <fkellis [at] stic.netx> wrote in message
news:426C699E.2A47 [at] stic.netx...
> Bo Raxo wrote:
> >
> > In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings, I've
never
> > seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long commercial
breaks.
> >
> > The standard break for years was two minutes. Most shows now do three
or
> > four minutes breaks, sometimes five.
> >
> > Enterprise regularly has seven or eight minute breaks. And not just at
the
> > half-hour, but the ones in between as well. That's way too long to
expect
> > viewers to sit there twiddling their...well, we'll go with thumbs.
> >
> > Many hard-core fans are the most likely types to Tivo or tape, so some
of
> > you might not notice. But it's really annoying if you try to watch the
show
> > in real-time, and even a long-time fan/geek like me starts flipping
around
> > after five minutes of ads for crappy cars I wouldn't be caught dead in.
> >
> > Bo Raxo
>
> I gave up watching TV shows in real time many years ago. Everything I
> watch is recorded first then watched at my leisure. When watching a
> show I recorded and a commerical comes on I hit the old 'CS Skip' button
> on the remote. A few clicks of the button and I'm back to the show
> without having to watch all those commericals.

I do the same thing. That's how I can give a good time estimate of how many
minutes their commercial breaks are. The CS button pops forward 30 seconds,
and I'll count off 14 or 15 clicks before the show resumes.


>To make sure I don't
> miss any shows I have 3 DVD recorders and 1 VHS tape recorder (that I
> have for backup).
>

Let me guess: the third DVD recorder is required because of Sunday nights:
that seems like the logjam of good tv (though for last season Tuesday also
qualified: simultaneous NYPD Blue, Shield, and SVU).
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #20547 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 06:46
David  
Hi Bo,

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:55:37 UTC, "Bo Raxo"
<invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:

>
> In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings, I've never
> seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long commercial breaks.

Yes, most shows have unbearably long and unintersting commercials.

> The standard break for years was two minutes. Most shows now do three or
> four minutes breaks, sometimes five.
>
> Enterprise regularly has seven or eight minute breaks. And not just at the
> half-hour, but the ones in between as well. That's way too long to expect
> viewers to sit there twiddling their...well, we'll go with thumbs.
>
> Many hard-core fans are the most likely types to Tivo or tape, so some of
> you might not notice. But it's really annoying if you try to watch the show
> in real-time, and even a long-time fan/geek like me starts flipping around
> after five minutes of ads for crappy cars I wouldn't be caught dead in.

I use a VCR for all viewing. Very little of it is what I would call live.
The reason is that the shows (most of them) don't keep your attention to
begin with. I can easily watch two simultanious shows without taping.
Sadly, since I don't miss parts that I don't see, it realy doesn't matter
that I miss many shows.

I also tape since family matters can interupt my viewing. I can come
back later to see parts that get missed.

I've seen all the Star Trek shows. Friday night's episisode took me
by suprise because my VCR is not longer set for Enterprise. I figured
we were done. I didn't see any hype for it; not that I should need it.
A nice reliable time slot makes a bit difference. I was able to find
out from a friend about Friday's episode and he had tapes it. I'll
get to see it Monday night. I caught a few minutes of it Saturday
night.

As for the commercials themselves, I can't tell you who advertises
on what shows. They do not provide useful information. (any more?)
Killing the credits and other parts of the show just to get a few
more seconds of commercial time is really low. The stations and
advertisers just emphasise the fact that their contents don't matter.

A little better writing might keep viewers interested to come back
after a commercial or to watch more episodes, but I don't see that
trend changing soon.

David
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #20548 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 08:12
Dave  
"Bo Raxo" wrote:
>
> In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings, I've never
> seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long commercial
> breaks.
>
> The standard break for years was two minutes. Most shows now do three or
> four minutes breaks, sometimes five.
>
> Enterprise regularly has seven or eight minute breaks. And not just at
> the
> half-hour, but the ones in between as well. That's way too long to expect
> viewers to sit there twiddling their...well, we'll go with thumbs.
>
CITY and Space still have commercial breaks of 2 1/2 - 3 minutes. However,
they then squeeze the closing credits through as quick as they can and forgo
the 'next week' teaser to throw in some of their own programming.

On CITY, it's just another lame Speakers Corner segment - and not any of the
real good ones. On Space, it's usually some interviews they shot of a major
star of one of theri newer series, either while on the annual press junket
down in LA or from one of the local sci-fi cons - either TT or SFX.

But it's not as bad as Discovery Channel. Over there they put in as many
short commercial breaks as they can get away with and then push the credits
right up to the top of the hour.

--
Dave
"Hosiolics of the world unite!
All you have to lose are your dangling participles."

"Dark Hottie-- er, I mean, Dark Hoshi ROCKS!"
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #20550 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 08:47
aether  
America is in a state of transformation, in many ways. Demographically,
the nation has changed from a majority European population to a polygot
cesspool. Psychologically, it's devolved into an infantile state, with
the % of individuals capable of grasping reality in rapid decline.
Essentially, it's becoming another Brazil.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #20551 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 08:53
Bo Raxo  
"aether" <vercingetorix [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114411653.136945.170680 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> America is in a state of transformation, in many ways. Demographically,
> the nation has changed from a majority European population to a polygot
> cesspool. Psychologically, it's devolved into an infantile state, with
> the % of individuals capable of grasping reality in rapid decline.
> Essentially, it's becoming another Brazil.
>

Time to replace the aluminum foil in your hat.


Bo Raxo
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22067 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 17:27
Numan  
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:deXae.375$Oz2.31 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings, I've never
> seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long commercial
> breaks.
>
> The standard break for years was two minutes. Most shows now do three or
> four minutes breaks, sometimes five.
>
> Enterprise regularly has seven or eight minute breaks. And not just at
> the
> half-hour, but the ones in between as well. That's way too long to expect
> viewers to sit there twiddling their...well, we'll go with thumbs.
>
> Many hard-core fans are the most likely types to Tivo or tape, so some of
> you might not notice. But it's really annoying if you try to watch the
> show
> in real-time, and even a long-time fan/geek like me starts flipping around
> after five minutes of ads for crappy cars I wouldn't be caught dead in.
>
>
> Bo Raxo

Absolutely! Even Voyager is cool to watch on DVD with
no commercials.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22069 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 18:06
Numan  
"aether" <vercingetorix [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114411653.136945.170680 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> America is in a state of transformation, in many ways. Demographically,
> the nation has changed from a majority European population to a polygot
> cesspool. Psychologically, it's devolved into an infantile state, with
> the % of individuals capable of grasping reality in rapid decline.
> Essentially, it's becoming another Brazil.

I don't think our numbers of people who are not capable of
grasping reality are increasing by %. I just think we tend to
ignore reality and are selfish towards eachother. I don't think
this would change if we got a fresh infusion of Europeans though.
They ignored pending doom for a very long time before WWII.
People are people and freedom makes people lazy and selfish.
But! I wouldn't trade it for anything.
Re: What Really Killed Enterprise [message #22071 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 17:54
Fred Ellis  
Bo Raxo wrote:
>
> "Fred Ellis" <fkellis [at] stic.netx> wrote in message
> news:426C699E.2A47 [at] stic.netx...
> > Bo Raxo wrote:
> > >
> > > In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings, I've
> never
> > > seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long commercial
> breaks.
> > >
> > > The standard break for years was two minutes. Most shows now do three
> or
> > > four minutes breaks, sometimes five.
> > >
> > > Enterprise regularly has seven or eight minute breaks. And not just at
> the
> > > half-hour, but the ones in between as well. That's way too long to
> expect
> > > viewers to sit there twiddling their...well, we'll go with thumbs.
> > >
> > > Many hard-core fans are the most likely types to Tivo or tape, so some
> of
> > > you might not notice. But it's really annoying if you try to watch the
> show
> > > in real-time, and even a long-time fan/geek like me starts flipping
> around
> > > after five minutes of ads for crappy cars I wouldn't be caught dead in.
> > >
> > > Bo Raxo
> >
> > I gave up watching TV shows in real time many years ago. Everything I
> > watch is recorded first then watched at my leisure. When watching a
> > show I recorded and a commerical comes on I hit the old 'CS Skip' button
> > on the remote. A few clicks of the button and I'm back to the show
> > without having to watch all those commericals.
>
> I do the same thing. That's how I can give a good time estimate of how many
> minutes their commercial breaks are. The CS button pops forward 30 seconds,
> and I'll count off 14 or 15 clicks before the show resumes.
>

The CS button on my remotes advance the recording by 1 minute. Normally
it takes 3 clicks to get pass the commericals. On some shows that are
more than a hour long I have seen commericals breaks of up to 4 1/2 - 5
minutes.

> >To make sure I don't
> > miss any shows I have 3 DVD recorders and 1 VHS tape recorder (that I
> > have for backup).
> >
>
> Let me guess: the third DVD recorder is required because of Sunday nights:
> that seems like the logjam of good tv (though for last season Tuesday also
> qualified: simultaneous NYPD Blue, Shield, and SVU).

Actually it had been Friday night for the last few months. There has
been up to 4 hours of recording on the Sci-Fi channel. Then I have
Enterprise to record, a mystery TV movie on the Hallmark channel, a
couple of shows on CBS as well as a show on NBC. For a while there I
would have up to 11 hours of recorded programing on Friday night.


Fred Ellis
--
Who do you serve. . . . And who do you trust?
(To e-mail me, remove the X from my address)
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22072 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 18:25
Jaxtraw  
"Numan" <tbrdmann [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:AA8be.569$m85.32 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "aether" <vercingetorix [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1114411653.136945.170680 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > America is in a state of transformation, in many ways. Demographically,
> > the nation has changed from a majority European population to a polygot
> > cesspool. Psychologically, it's devolved into an infantile state, with
> > the % of individuals capable of grasping reality in rapid decline.
> > Essentially, it's becoming another Brazil.
>
> I don't think our numbers of people who are not capable of
> grasping reality are increasing by %. I just think we tend to
> ignore reality and are selfish towards eachother. I don't think
> this would change if we got a fresh infusion of Europeans though.
> They ignored pending doom for a very long time before WWII.

I think that's maybe a bit hasty. It's not so easy these days to comprehend
the sense of horror left by the Great War- the absolute carnage, the
millions of deaths, every family scarred by a loved one (or several) killed,
maimed or irreparably psychologically damaged. There was a general feeling
that another war the same would be an unthinkable catastrophe. As such, many
people felt they'd do anything to avoid a war. It wasn't all surgical
strikes and Shock And Awe and people getting upset by 5 or 10 soldiers'
deaths back then. We should be cautious in judging people in a very
different time by our own standards, I think.

Ian

--
____________________
A quality online comic strip for the discerning reader.
With shagging in it.
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
Free daily rude toons
http://www.lewdart.com
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22083 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 19:31
greg brown  
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:deXae.375$Oz2.31 [at] newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings, I've never
> seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long commercial
> breaks.
>
> The standard break for years was two minutes. Most shows now do three or
> four minutes breaks, sometimes five.
>
> Enterprise regularly has seven or eight minute breaks. And not just at
> the
> half-hour, but the ones in between as well. That's way too long to expect
> viewers to sit there twiddling their...well, we'll go with thumbs.
>

Yes, its hard to tell a complete story in 42 minutes in this genre.

Greg
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22095 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 20:57
zod666  
I agree with your theory that they'res too many commercials. I believe
this applies to most tv shows these days though.

I don't think many shows clock in past 42 minutes anymore.. usually its
41 and change. I was watching some ds9 eps on the computer the other
day and notcied how they run over 45 minutes.

I think episodes started to get shorted during voyager's run, but now i
think every show runs that short.

They made too many tv channels, not enough people watch them, so to
cover expenses they increased commercial time.

this comes at our expense, and now its turning us to stuff like tivo or
bittorrent to avoid commercials.

oh well, thats my theory, commercials also drive me insane, if i'm
watching something on tv and it goes to a commercial, i usually just
turn the channel for a few minutes anyways.

- BRiAN
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22103 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 22:27
Dave  
We should be cautious in judging people in a very
> different time by our own standards, I think.
>

And the same should go to all those modern-day socialists/liberals who decry
Truman's authorization of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes,
an initial death toll of 300,000 from Hiroshima may seem horrific, but put
that in perspective to the US army's conservative estimate of 1.1 million
casualties in a conventional invasion - and that's only from military
personal.

The US already had a two-stage plan drawn up for an invasion: the first part
in August to take the southern island of Kyushu, and the main landing force
against the main island of Honshu in November.

Let me give you another perspective on that. The Pentagon, in preparations
for this invasion, ordered the manufacture of 400,000 purple hearts for this
operation ALONE - a supply that the US military is still going through to
this day.

Sorry, but I get my hackles up whenever I start hearing liberal-minded
thinking that all the world's problems can be solved just by singing the
oft-used Beatles line "Love is all you need." over and over again ad
nausium. Not to say that you were saying that, but wanted to head the hoard
of such off at the pass.

--
Dave
"Hosiolics of the world unite!
All you have to lose are your dangling participles."

"Dark Hottie-- er, I mean, Dark Hoshi ROCKS!"
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22104 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 22:53
aether  
Jaxtraw wrote:
>
> I think that's maybe a bit hasty. It's not so easy these days to
comprehend
> the sense of horror left by the Great War- the absolute carnage, the
> millions of deaths, every family scarred by a loved one (or several)
killed,
> maimed or irreparably psychologically damaged. There was a general
feeling
> that another war the same would be an unthinkable catastrophe. As
such, many
> people felt they'd do anything to avoid a war. It wasn't all surgical
> strikes and Shock And Awe and people getting upset by 5 or 10
soldiers'
> deaths back then. We should be cautious in judging people in a very
> different time by our own standards, I think.
>
> Ian

Very good post, Ian. The Great War was a catastrophe from which Europe,
and America (Wilson: "I've destroyed my country."), has never truly
recovered. It should've never happened.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22106 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 22:59
Jaxtraw  
"Dave" <dgreenlaw_no_spam [at] rogers.com> wrote in message
news:xdSdnU3IYIQIz_DfRVn-sQ [at] rogers.com...
>
> We should be cautious in judging people in a very
> > different time by our own standards, I think.
> >
>
> And the same should go to all those modern-day socialists/liberals who
decry
> Truman's authorization of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Yes,
> an initial death toll of 300,000 from Hiroshima may seem horrific, but put
> that in perspective to the US army's conservative estimate of 1.1 million
> casualties in a conventional invasion - and that's only from military
> personal.
>
> The US already had a two-stage plan drawn up for an invasion: the first
part
> in August to take the southern island of Kyushu, and the main landing
force
> against the main island of Honshu in November.
>
> Let me give you another perspective on that. The Pentagon, in
preparations
> for this invasion, ordered the manufacture of 400,000 purple hearts for
this
> operation ALONE - a supply that the US military is still going through to
> this day.
>
> Sorry, but I get my hackles up whenever I start hearing liberal-minded
> thinking that all the world's problems can be solved just by singing the
> oft-used Beatles line "Love is all you need." over and over again ad
> nausium. Not to say that you were saying that, but wanted to head the
hoard
> of such off at the pass.
>
> --

It's "ad nauseam". Nothing pisses me off more than people who try to use
fancy phraseology, and can't spell it.

Ignoring your phenomenally simplistic view of the complexities of the world-
no, I wasn't making a pacifist point. I was saying that for those of us in
the days of the TV war, where people go ape shit at the deaths of a few tens
of soldiers, it's difficult for us to comprehend a time when nearly
everybody had lost husbands, fathers, brothers, sons, had those that came
back from the war so filthy and lice infested they had to be hosed down in
their back yards and their rotten clothing burned (source: my grandmother),
had some of those who came back forever mentally damaged and destroyed by
the horrors they'd undergone, and known that many of these young men had
been thrown into the meat grinder for a few yards of soil, and we shouldn't
be so quick to judge them for not wanting to go through the same again.

And as it goes, if I'd been Truman I'd have dropped the bomb too.
Ironically, for much the same reason that made people fearful of entering a
second Great War in the first place.

The world is a lot more fucking complex than caricatures of "conservative"
and "liberal", both of which are words the american idiocracy have perverted
in meaning and turned into epithets, and I'm sure that you'll agree that
every rational person is against war, and that war is something that should
not be initiated without considerable consideration. What kind of a fuckwit
is in favour of it?

Ian
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22107 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 23:05
Jaxtraw  
"aether" <vercingetorix [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114462427.825717.125030 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Jaxtraw wrote:
> >
> > I think that's maybe a bit hasty. It's not so easy these days to
> comprehend
> > the sense of horror left by the Great War- the absolute carnage, the
> > millions of deaths, every family scarred by a loved one (or several)
> killed,
> > maimed or irreparably psychologically damaged. There was a general
> feeling
> > that another war the same would be an unthinkable catastrophe. As
> such, many
> > people felt they'd do anything to avoid a war. It wasn't all surgical
> > strikes and Shock And Awe and people getting upset by 5 or 10
> soldiers'
> > deaths back then. We should be cautious in judging people in a very
> > different time by our own standards, I think.
> >
> > Ian
>
> Very good post, Ian. The Great War was a catastrophe from which Europe,
> and America (Wilson: "I've destroyed my country."), has never truly
> recovered. It should've never happened.
>

Thanks :)

Ian

--
____________________
A quality online comic strip for the discerning reader.
With shagging in it.
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
Free daily rude toons
http://www.lewdart.com
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22108 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 23:06
Gerald Meazell  
Bo Raxo wrote:
> In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings, I've never
> seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long commercial breaks.
>

It is my understanding that Enterprise was UPN's highest rated show. If
you're the highest rated show on the entire network, how do you get
yourself cancelled for failing in the ratings? I believe the
cancellation was a political decision at UPN. Since they're not the
Lambda Lambda Lambda fraternity, a bunch of snivelling white nerds did
not fit with their mostly black, I mean urban, viewership.

The solution to long commercials is product placement. However, where
does that leave sci-fi? Wouldn't it be out of place for Archer to have
a can of Pepsi on his desk?

--
Gerald
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22110 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 23:15
rgorman  
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:27:01 -0400, "Dave"
<dgreenlaw_no_spam [at] rogers.com> wrote:

>
> We should be cautious in judging people in a very
>> different time by our own standards, I think.
>>
>
>And the same should go to all those modern-day socialists/liberals who decry
>Truman's authorization of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes,
>an initial death toll of 300,000 from Hiroshima may seem horrific, but put
>that in perspective to the US army's conservative estimate of 1.1 million
>casualties in a conventional invasion -

1. That wasn't a conservative estimate. That was a pessimistic
estimate.

2. Don't compare deaths to casualties. They are two different
things. A "casualty" is anyone who was injured enough to be taken
out of the line of battle.

A rather more valid point is that they actually were launching
conventional bombing raids that inflicted just as much or more
fatalities. But then the fatalities from those bombs bother the
Japanese less than the survivors.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22111 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 23:17
rgorman  
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:06:39 GMT, Gerald Meazell
<gerald [at] jateramortgage.com> wrote:

>Bo Raxo wrote:
>> In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings, I've never
>> seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long commercial breaks.
>>
>
>It is my understanding that Enterprise was UPN's highest rated show.

Nah. Wrestling was UPN's highest rated show.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22114 ] Mo, 25 April 2005 23:35
Jaxtraw  
"Gerald Meazell" <gerald [at] jateramortgage.com> wrote in message
news:zZcbe.677$m85.43 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> Bo Raxo wrote:
> > In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings, I've
never
> > seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long commercial
breaks.
> >
>
> It is my understanding that Enterprise was UPN's highest rated show. If
> you're the highest rated show on the entire network, how do you get
> yourself cancelled for failing in the ratings? I believe the
> cancellation was a political decision at UPN. Since they're not the
> Lambda Lambda Lambda fraternity, a bunch of snivelling white nerds did
> not fit with their mostly black, I mean urban, viewership.
>
> The solution to long commercials is product placement. However, where
> does that leave sci-fi? Wouldn't it be out of place for Archer to have
> a can of Pepsi on his desk?
>
> --
> Gerald

Well, Jim Kirk had a Samsonite suitcase... :)

Ian

--
____________________
A quality online comic strip for the discerning reader.
With shagging in it.
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
Free daily rude toons
http://www.lewdart.com
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22153 ] Di, 26 April 2005 07:28
Al Smith  
> And the same should go to all those modern-day socialists/liberals who decry
> Truman's authorization of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes,
> an initial death toll of 300,000 from Hiroshima may seem horrific, but put
> that in perspective to the US army's conservative estimate of 1.1 million
> casualties in a conventional invasion - and that's only from military
> personal.

The only thing I have against the atomic bombing of Japan is that
the US is so mealie-mouthed about why they did it. It had nothing
to do with saving lives and ending the war sooner. It was payback
for Pearl Harbor.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22156 ] Di, 26 April 2005 09:10
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22158 ] Di, 26 April 2005 10:25
aether  
GeorgeWOrw... [at] whitehouse.gov wrote:
> They started the war. Any country that attacks another unprovoked
> deserves to be destroyed with a nuclear weapon. On a totally
> different topic, how's the phony war in Iraq today?

More pontificating.

Remember this: Germany and Japan are energy dependant, and one is
landlocked and surrounded by traditional enemies

Once you fully grasp what that means, you'll have a better
understanding as to why these two nations attacked first.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22159 ] Di, 26 April 2005 10:52
Jaxtraw  
"aether" <vercingetorix [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114503919.272446.168820 [at] f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> GeorgeWOrw... [at] whitehouse.gov wrote:
> > They started the war. Any country that attacks another unprovoked
> > deserves to be destroyed with a nuclear weapon. On a totally
> > different topic, how's the phony war in Iraq today?
>
> More pontificating.
>
> Remember this: Germany and Japan are energy dependant, and one is
> landlocked and surrounded by traditional enemies
>
> Once you fully grasp what that means, you'll have a better
> understanding as to why these two nations attacked first.
>

I think you'll find that Germany started WWII because it was run by a short
Austrian with a funny moustache who believed in a glorious German empire,
and that most of his neighbours were sub-human, just to be pedantic :)

Ian
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22160 ] Di, 26 April 2005 10:51
Bo Raxo  
"Dave" <dgreenlaw_no_spam [at] rogers.com> wrote in message
news:xdSdnU3IYIQIz_DfRVn-sQ [at] rogers.com...
>
> We should be cautious in judging people in a very
> > different time by our own standards, I think.
> >
>
> And the same should go to all those modern-day socialists/liberals who
decry
> Truman's authorization of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Yes,
> an initial death toll of 300,000 from Hiroshima may seem horrific, but put
> that in perspective to the US army's conservative estimate of 1.1 million
> casualties in a conventional invasion - and that's only from military
> personal.
>
> The US already had a two-stage plan drawn up for an invasion: the first
part
> in August to take the southern island of Kyushu, and the main landing
force
> against the main island of Honshu in November.
>
> Let me give you another perspective on that. The Pentagon, in
preparations
> for this invasion, ordered the manufacture of 400,000 purple hearts for
this
> operation ALONE - a supply that the US military is still going through to
> this day.

You posit a false dichotomy. And your justification is that the Pentagon at
the time did the same thing.

Sure, the Pentagon was all for trying out their shiny new toy. It blowed
things up real good! So they put it up against a scenario of invasion.

But those weren't the only (or best) choices. The U.S. could have created a
very effective naval blockade.

We owned the seas around Japan six months before the atomic bombs were
dropped. We could have surrounded the place, and waited for the government
to either surrender or be overthrown. The people of Japan would have
sufffered during the seige, but less so than they did from having two
nuclear bombs dropped on major cities.


>
> Sorry, but I get my hackles up whenever I start hearing liberal-minded
> thinking that all the world's problems can be solved just by singing the
> oft-used Beatles line "Love is all you need." over and over again ad
> nausium. Not to say that you were saying that, but wanted to head the
hoard
> of such off at the pass.
>

I'm not sorry that I get my hackles up when I see cheap bullshit excuses for
logic used, and conservatives seem to reuse a very limited bag of tricks.
Pick the two extremes, and claim one extreme is better than the other, as if
there were no other option. Then pick the most extreme dipshit hippie
viewpoint you can find, and attribute it to all liberals: it's like saying
"sorry, I try to respect conservatives but those neo-Nazis have views that I
just, gosh darn it, think have to be refuted!"

This isn't a political ng, so maybe you thought those two-bit old school
cheap tricks would work here, but I have to call bullshit on you.


Bo Raxo
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22161 ] Di, 26 April 2005 10:56
Bo Raxo  
<GeorgeWOrwell [at] whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
news:d9qr61dt6a0tr6hrv34fa5b20ua50ns28t [at] 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:28:29 GMT, Al Smith <invalid [at] address.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> And the same should go to all those modern-day socialists/liberals who
decry
> >> Truman's authorization of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Yes,
> >> an initial death toll of 300,000 from Hiroshima may seem horrific, but
put
> >> that in perspective to the US army's conservative estimate of 1.1
million
> >> casualties in a conventional invasion - and that's only from military
> >> personal.
> >
> >The only thing I have against the atomic bombing of Japan is that
> >the US is so mealie-mouthed about why they did it. It had nothing
> >to do with saving lives and ending the war sooner. It was payback
> >for Pearl Harbor.
>
> They started the war. Any country that attacks another unprovoked
> deserves to be destroyed with a nuclear weapon. On a totally
> different topic, how's the phony war in Iraq today?

"They" started the war? So any Japanese person was equally guilty, by
birth? That's racism of the cheapest kind: convincing yourself it's
political.

Here's a clue for you: the government of Japan in the 30s wasn't a friggin'
democracy. They were under an early and powerful version of the military
industrial complex. That power center decided war was a good idea, twisted
the monarch's arm (not hard to do), and the citizens had no choice but to go
along. Punishing them by irradiating hundreds of thousands, some to die
quickly, others more slowly from cancer, is hardly justice.

It's the same piss-ant poor excuse for logic that Al Qaeda uses when it
"punishes" the American government by killing a few thousand innocent
citizens. Or Eric Robert Rudolph used when murdering innocent people, or
Kaczynski, or McVeigh. Guilt by membership - what a heinous notion.


Bo Raxo
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22162 ] Di, 26 April 2005 11:16
Jaxtraw  
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:Fmnbe.14358$An2.12954 [at] newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> <GeorgeWOrwell [at] whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
> news:d9qr61dt6a0tr6hrv34fa5b20ua50ns28t [at] 4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:28:29 GMT, Al Smith <invalid [at] address.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> And the same should go to all those modern-day socialists/liberals
who
> decry
> > >> Truman's authorization of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.
> Yes,
> > >> an initial death toll of 300,000 from Hiroshima may seem horrific,
but
> put
> > >> that in perspective to the US army's conservative estimate of 1.1
> million
> > >> casualties in a conventional invasion - and that's only from military
> > >> personal.
> > >
> > >The only thing I have against the atomic bombing of Japan is that
> > >the US is so mealie-mouthed about why they did it. It had nothing
> > >to do with saving lives and ending the war sooner. It was payback
> > >for Pearl Harbor.
> >
> > They started the war. Any country that attacks another unprovoked
> > deserves to be destroyed with a nuclear weapon. On a totally
> > different topic, how's the phony war in Iraq today?
>
> "They" started the war? So any Japanese person was equally guilty, by
> birth? That's racism of the cheapest kind: convincing yourself it's
> political.
>
> Here's a clue for you: the government of Japan in the 30s wasn't a
friggin'
> democracy. They were under an early and powerful version of the military
> industrial complex. That power center decided war was a good idea,
twisted
> the monarch's arm (not hard to do), and the citizens had no choice but to
go
> along. Punishing them by irradiating hundreds of thousands, some to die
> quickly, others more slowly from cancer, is hardly justice.
>
> It's the same piss-ant poor excuse for logic that Al Qaeda uses when it
> "punishes" the American government by killing a few thousand innocent
> citizens. Or Eric Robert Rudolph used when murdering innocent people, or
> Kaczynski, or McVeigh. Guilt by membership - what a heinous notion.
>

It's a curious paradox, the attitude of the hawkish. In the modern world for
instance, "The Arabs" or "Muslims" are collectively responsible for the
activity of their non-democratic governments and independent terrorist
groups- while "we" aren't responsible for the activities of the governments
we chose and mandated democratically. It's a mad mad world!

Far more significant though is the question of why, with the Agony Booth
being a brand new experimental invention, did Charlie "Bad Skin Day" Tucker
refer to it to T'Pol as "The Booth", a vernacular you'd only use regarding
something with which there is general familiarity? And why is it, whenever I
hear her name, I think of Fiddler On The Roof?

Ian

--
____________________
A quality online comic strip for the discerning reader.
With shagging in it.
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
Free daily rude toons
http://www.lewdart.com
Re: What Really Killed Enterprise [message #22164 ] Di, 26 April 2005 11:38
buck rojerz  
Fred Ellis <fkellis [at] stic.netx> wrote in news:426D1298.6F01 [at] stic.netx:

> Bo Raxo wrote:
>>
>> "Fred Ellis" <fkellis [at] stic.netx> wrote in message
>> news:426C699E.2A47 [at] stic.netx...
>> > Bo Raxo wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings,
>> > > I've
>> never
>> > > seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long
>> > > commercial
>> breaks.
>> > >
>> > > The standard break for years was two minutes. Most shows now do
>> > > three
>> or
>> > > four minutes breaks, sometimes five.
>> > >
>> > > Enterprise regularly has seven or eight minute breaks. And not
>> > > just at
>> the
>> > > half-hour, but the ones in between as well. That's way too long
>> > > to
>> expect
>> > > viewers to sit there twiddling their...well, we'll go with
>> > > thumbs.
>> > >
>> > > Many hard-core fans are the most likely types to Tivo or tape, so
>> > > some
>> of
>> > > you might not notice. But it's really annoying if you try to
>> > > watch the
>> show
>> > > in real-time, and even a long-time fan/geek like me starts
>> > > flipping
>> around
>> > > after five minutes of ads for crappy cars I wouldn't be caught
>> > > dead in.
>> > >
>> > > Bo Raxo
>> >
>> > I gave up watching TV shows in real time many years ago.
>> > Everything I watch is recorded first then watched at my leisure.
>> > When watching a show I recorded and a commerical comes on I hit the
>> > old 'CS Skip' button on the remote. A few clicks of the button and
>> > I'm back to the show without having to watch all those commericals.
>>
>> I do the same thing. That's how I can give a good time estimate of
>> how many minutes their commercial breaks are. The CS button pops
>> forward 30 seconds, and I'll count off 14 or 15 clicks before the
>> show resumes.
>>
>
> The CS button on my remotes advance the recording by 1 minute.
> Normally it takes 3 clicks to get pass the commericals. On some shows
> that are more than a hour long I have seen commericals breaks of up to
> 4 1/2 - 5 minutes.
>
>> >To make sure I don't
>> > miss any shows I have 3 DVD recorders and 1 VHS tape recorder (that
>> > I have for backup).
>> >
>>
>> Let me guess: the third DVD recorder is required because of Sunday
>> nights: that seems like the logjam of good tv (though for last season
>> Tuesday also qualified: simultaneous NYPD Blue, Shield, and SVU).
>
> Actually it had been Friday night for the last few months. There has
> been up to 4 hours of recording on the Sci-Fi channel. Then I have
> Enterprise to record, a mystery TV movie on the Hallmark channel, a
> couple of shows on CBS as well as a show on NBC. For a while there I
> would have up to 11 hours of recorded programing on Friday night.
>
>
> Fred Ellis

My VCR does that for me. The "commercial reject" function must be turned
on during the initial recording. Then when you watch the show the VCR
automatically fast-forwards the tape through the commercials. If it goes
(fast) into the show a few seconds, it rewinds slowly to the fade-out--
fade-in and then plays normally.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22167 ] Di, 26 April 2005 16:24
Numan  
"Jaxtraw" <jaxtraw [at] nospamnobigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:426d192b$0$83072$ed2619ec [at] ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> "Numan" <tbrdmann [at] sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:AA8be.569$m85.32 [at] newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "aether" <vercingetorix [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1114411653.136945.170680 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > America is in a state of transformation, in many ways. Demographically,
>> > the nation has changed from a majority European population to a polygot
>> > cesspool. Psychologically, it's devolved into an infantile state, with
>> > the % of individuals capable of grasping reality in rapid decline.
>> > Essentially, it's becoming another Brazil.
>>
>> I don't think our numbers of people who are not capable of
>> grasping reality are increasing by %. I just think we tend to
>> ignore reality and are selfish towards eachother. I don't think
>> this would change if we got a fresh infusion of Europeans though.
>> They ignored pending doom for a very long time before WWII.
>
> I think that's maybe a bit hasty. It's not so easy these days to
> comprehend
> the sense of horror left by the Great War- the absolute carnage, the
> millions of deaths, every family scarred by a loved one (or several)
> killed,
> maimed or irreparably psychologically damaged. There was a general feeling
> that another war the same would be an unthinkable catastrophe. As such,
> many
> people felt they'd do anything to avoid a war. It wasn't all surgical
> strikes and Shock And Awe and people getting upset by 5 or 10 soldiers'
> deaths back then. We should be cautious in judging people in a very
> different time by our own standards, I think.
>
> Ian

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was judging them for ignoring
what was going on. No, not at all. I meant that it is, in my opinion, human
nature to ignore problems hoping that they iron themselves out. Lots do.
Americans were just as guilty of this during that time as any other country.
We didn't want to get involved and hoped that the Europeans would be
able to take care of their own.

I think that is a part of why we insist on sticking our nose in everything.
We know that when the shit hits the fan we will get sucked in anyway
so we might as well take the task at hand early instead of waiting.
I guess I am not a nice person because if it was up to me I'd wait
and then say, "you want us to fix your problems, pay us. There is
no free lunch". I know that isn't very Trek of me. I am just tired of
us getting the shitty end of the stick on EVERYTHING.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22173 ] Di, 26 April 2005 18:47
Al Smith  
>>The only thing I have against the atomic bombing of Japan is that
>>>the US is so mealie-mouthed about why they did it. It had nothing
>>>to do with saving lives and ending the war sooner. It was payback
>>>for Pearl Harbor.
>
>
> They started the war. Any country that attacks another unprovoked
> deserves to be destroyed with a nuclear weapon. On a totally
> different topic, how's the phony war in Iraq today?

You know, I haven't been following it in the news. I've reached
the level of age and cynicism that I don't really care what
happens in Iraq. I'm sure that American forces will be withdrawn
when it becomes expedient for the presidency to withdraw them. I
doubt US troops are killing Iraqis any faster than their fellow
Iraqis would have been killing them -- although different groups
are getting killed.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22176 ] Di, 26 April 2005 19:08
rgorman  
On 26 Apr 2005 01:25:19 -0700, "aether" <vercingetorix [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:

>GeorgeWOrw... [at] whitehouse.gov wrote:
>> They started the war. Any country that attacks another unprovoked
>> deserves to be destroyed with a nuclear weapon. On a totally
>> different topic, how's the phony war in Iraq today?
>
>More pontificating.
>
>Remember this: Germany and Japan are energy dependant, and one is
>landlocked and surrounded by traditional enemies
>
>Once you fully grasp what that means, you'll have a better
>understanding as to why these two nations attacked first.

They were stupid.

>
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22177 ] Di, 26 April 2005 19:09
rgorman  
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:56:05 GMT, "Bo Raxo"
<invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:

>
><GeorgeWOrwell [at] whitehouse.gov> wrote in message
>news:d9qr61dt6a0tr6hrv34fa5b20ua50ns28t [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:28:29 GMT, Al Smith <invalid [at] address.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> And the same should go to all those modern-day socialists/liberals who
>decry
>> >> Truman's authorization of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>Yes,
>> >> an initial death toll of 300,000 from Hiroshima may seem horrific, but
>put
>> >> that in perspective to the US army's conservative estimate of 1.1
>million
>> >> casualties in a conventional invasion - and that's only from military
>> >> personal.
>> >
>> >The only thing I have against the atomic bombing of Japan is that
>> >the US is so mealie-mouthed about why they did it. It had nothing
>> >to do with saving lives and ending the war sooner. It was payback
>> >for Pearl Harbor.
>>
>> They started the war. Any country that attacks another unprovoked
>> deserves to be destroyed with a nuclear weapon. On a totally
>> different topic, how's the phony war in Iraq today?
>
>"They" started the war? So any Japanese person was equally guilty, by
>birth? That's racism of the cheapest kind: convincing yourself it's
>political.
>

Check your sarcasm detector. I think it needs new batteries.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22179 ] Di, 26 April 2005 19:14
rgorman  
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:51:59 GMT, "Bo Raxo"
<invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:

>We owned the seas around Japan six months before the atomic bombs were
>dropped. We could have surrounded the place, and waited for the government
>to either surrender or be overthrown. The people of Japan would have
>sufffered during the seige, but less so than they did from having two
>nuclear bombs dropped on major cities.

I think it is difficult to measure the respective suffering caused by
years of a siege and starvation versus two nuclear weapons. I'm far
from sure that that the former would be less suffering all in all.
And consider. The North Koreans have been starving for decades.
See any signs of surrender?
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22187 ] Di, 26 April 2005 20:27
George Peatty  
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:28:29 GMT, Al Smith <invalid [at] address.com> wrote:

>The only thing I have against the atomic bombing of Japan is that
>the US is so mealie-mouthed about why they did it. It had nothing
>to do with saving lives and ending the war sooner. It was payback
>for Pearl Harbor.

Neither of us were there. We don't know. It's a more compelling argument
to say that Dresden was payback for Stalingrad than that Hiroshima was
payback for Pearl Harbor ..
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22188 ] Di, 26 April 2005 21:00
George Peatty  
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:55:37 GMT, "Bo Raxo"
<invasions_r_us [at] thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:

>
>In all the discussion of why Enterprise failed in the ratings, I've never
>seen anybody mention the obvious: it has unbearably long commercial breaks.
>
>The standard break for years was two minutes. Most shows now do three or
>four minutes breaks, sometimes five.
>
>Enterprise regularly has seven or eight minute breaks. And not just at the
>half-hour, but the ones in between as well. That's way too long to expect
>viewers to sit there twiddling their...well, we'll go with thumbs.
>
>Many hard-core fans are the most likely types to Tivo or tape, so some of
>you might not notice. But it's really annoying if you try to watch the show

>>in real-time, and even a long-time fan/geek like me starts flipping around
>after five minutes of ads for crappy cars I wouldn't be caught dead in.

From your keyboard to the monitor of the chair of the FCC ..
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22192 ] Di, 26 April 2005 22:50
Al Smith  
>>The only thing I have against the atomic bombing of Japan is that
>>>the US is so mealie-mouthed about why they did it. It had nothing
>>>to do with saving lives and ending the war sooner. It was payback
>>>for Pearl Harbor.
>
>
> Neither of us were there. We don't know. It's a more compelling argument
> to say that Dresden was payback for Stalingrad than that Hiroshima was
> payback for Pearl Harbor ..
>

Naw. Dresden was payback for London.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22196 ] Mi, 27 April 2005 00:06
Numan  
"Al Smith" <invalid [at] address.com> wrote in message
news:1kkbe.19847$Ln.924589 [at] ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> And the same should go to all those modern-day socialists/liberals who
>> decry Truman's authorization of dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and
>> Nagasaki. Yes, an initial death toll of 300,000 from Hiroshima may seem
>> horrific, but put that in perspective to the US army's conservative
>> estimate of 1.1 million casualties in a conventional invasion - and
>> that's only from military personal.
>
> The only thing I have against the atomic bombing of Japan is that the US
> is so mealie-mouthed about why they did it. It had nothing to do with
> saving lives and ending the war sooner. It was payback for Pearl Harbor.

I have no doubt that there were people who saw it that way
then but would think it would be the minority.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22214 ] Mi, 27 April 2005 08:02
aether  
Al Smith wrote:
> >
>
> Naw. Dresden was payback for London.

I hear the English are a minority in their own capitol city.

What was it they were fighting for again?

That's right. Murder their Germanic cousins only to vanish within the
next century. The colonizers have become the colonized, and an utter
disgrace to their ancestors. Churchill would vomit if he saw England
today.
Re: What really killed Enterprise [message #22215 ] Mi, 27 April 2005 08:15
aether  
George Peatty wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:28:29 GMT, Al Smith <invalid [at] address.com>
wrote:
> Neither of us were there. We don't know. It's a more compelling
argument
> to say that Dresden was payback for Stalingrad than that Hiroshima
was
> payback for Pearl Harbor ..

Arthur "Bomber" Harris was bloodthirsty and ruthless. In fact, the RAF
and the political establishment which had previously supported him
sought to distance themselves from him after the war. Had the 'Allies'
lost the war, he would've likely been executed for war crimes. As it
is, only the losers are put on trial.
Vorheriges Thema:Paramount ticking me off playing the ENT's timeslot
Nächstes Thema:Homosexual www.scifi.com Gaylactic Awards information #2
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 03:11:44 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10056 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered