Is this chatfilter?

September 16, 2007 6:49 PM

Why is this question not chatfilter? I re-read the FAQ and the question seems to be the definition of chatty and open-ended.

The only part of the question that could have a specific and practical answer (if it were phrased better) is "Is there some type of market / economic factors that I am not considering here?" To me, it seems like the poster wants to have a conversation about how there's nothing on t.v.

Please feel free to tell me I'm wrong and that I am missing something about how AskMe works.

posted by sneakin to etiquette/policy at 6:49 PM (28 comments total)

Agreed.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 6:56 PM on September 16, 2007

Looks like there's a genuine question there, and better yet, a genuine answer. If you'd read past the first sentence, you'd realize that. I looked, I learned. Thanks for highlighting it, if not for the manner of bringing it to our attention.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:03 PM on September 16, 2007

sneakin, This isn't "chatfilter". As you watch that thread unfold, you'll see why.

Although I'm not a layperson, I'll try to explain in those terms.

There are many factors involved in deciding what is or is not shown on T.V. In fact, I've been thinking about this myself lately.
posted by snsranch at 7:05 PM on September 16, 2007

You apparently missed the question about the economics of licensing movies for play on cable networks.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:05 PM on September 16, 2007

That ain't chatfilter.
posted by puke & cry at 7:05 PM on September 16, 2007

It might not be asked in the best way, but it's a real question. It's not just "TV sucks amirite?", but "What factors decide what movies are on TV?"
posted by lilac girl at 7:11 PM on September 16, 2007

Everything after the first sentence seems pretty focused to me: what is the economic model behind cable movie programming, and why don't the studios choose "higher quality" content?

on preview: what they all said
posted by metabrilliant at 7:14 PM on September 16, 2007

I thought it was chatfiltery until I got to the part where he was asking "Is there some type of market / economic factors that I am not considering here? Is HBO bound to certain studios? What is going on here?" though I do agree that the intro was pretty "XYZ sucks AMIRITE?"
posted by jessamyn at 7:15 PM on September 16, 2007

What jess said. It's really kind of chatty phrasing that had me wondering too, but the fundamental question of why movies on TV are lame is a good one and the thread bore that out last time I looked.
posted by cortex at 7:24 PM on September 16, 2007

Sweet, Trading Places is on TV again.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:35 PM on September 16, 2007

It could be considered chatty if Charles in Charge ever gets mentioned.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:09 PM on September 16, 2007

Why is there never anything good on TV?

BECAUSE IT IS TELEVISION AND TELEVISION SUCKS!?

It was really hard not to post this over there. Kill your TV.
posted by loquacious at 9:22 PM on September 16, 2007

But I want to watch House. And Grey's. And Veronica Ma - Dammit, that got fucked over by stupid execs. Okay. Killing your TV it is.
posted by Phire at 9:28 PM on September 16, 2007

There can't be any logic or reason to the rules that control these airings of TV movies, because Rockula was on TV the other night.
posted by davejay at 9:34 PM on September 16, 2007

I flagged it when I saw it, but after reading the answers I would retract that decision if I could. It's actually quite a good question.

Maybe this is evidence supporting a slow trigger finger, along with the holes plugged in this monstrosity of a thread.
posted by danb at 10:17 PM on September 16, 2007

Now this is a chatfilter question.
posted by Mitheral at 10:18 PM on September 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Seriously. "I'll go first. This one time, I really really had to pee..."

I obviously don't understand the criteria for chatfilter.
posted by ottereroticist at 10:22 PM on September 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm just wondering why this person says the movies on HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc. etc. are Shiite. Aren't the Sunni militias currently controlling most cable movies? Well, other than the ones on Turner Classic Movies and the TV Land which are of course under Hamas control for the time being. (Everyone knows how much Mahmoud al-Zahar loves his Facts of Life Special Episodes!!!)
posted by miss lynnster at 11:34 PM on September 16, 2007 [3 favorites]

It was really hard not to post this over there. Kill your TV.

You don't kill your friends.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:28 AM on September 17, 2007

Fair enough. I can see how on balance it turns out not to be chat. Thanks for explaining, folks!
posted by sneakin at 3:16 AM on September 17, 2007

No one likes a tattletale.
posted by psmealey at 3:31 AM on September 17, 2007

"Why is there never anything good on TV?" is hyperbolic chatfilter.

But "More specifically, why is there not a movie channel that shows 3, 4, and 5 star movies 24-7?" is not.
posted by grouse at 3:33 AM on September 17, 2007

I know chatfilter. I served with chatfilter. And that, my friend, is no chat filter!

(applause)
posted by The Deej at 5:19 AM on September 17, 2007

It's better than his weekly question about moving from Bermuda to North Carolina
posted by poppo at 8:57 AM on September 17, 2007 [2 favorites]

Why would anyone do that? Has this cat ever been to North Carolina?

Ahh North Carolina, I kid. It's a wonderful place. The only beef I have with North Carolina is it's full of North Carolingians.
posted by Mister_A at 9:43 AM on September 17, 2007

You would understand the question if you owned a TV.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:02 AM on September 17, 2007

1) Is there some type of market / economic factors that I am not considering here?

2) Is HBO bound to certain studios?
posted by delmoi at 11:11 AM on September 17, 2007

“Television: Teacher, mother, secret lover.”
posted by blue_beetle at 11:36 AM on September 17, 2007