3 ms·

> Saying there are no ads, when there were ads, is just wrong. right, and Cox Cable has a competitor because there's a dialup service available that competes a

> Saying there are no ads, when there were ads, is just wrong. right, and Cox Cable has a competitor because there's a dialup service available that competes against the fiber. That's not how English works, that's not how people work. That's how computers work. You are communicating with people, not computers. > Probably doing too many to notice all the ads on cable in the 90s then I guess. Because they were there. it's a mitch hedberg joke. I was making fun of your insistence that my usage of the word 'now' means it couldn't have also been true for a long while in the past.

vel0city 3y ago
I go to a restaurant. I ask the waiter, "does this sandwich have mustard on it?" The waiter responds "No, this sandwich does not have mustard." I order the sandwich and find it has loads of yellow mustard on it. I go to the waiter and ask what gives, and he replies "well, it doesn't have any Grey Poupon." Was the waiter correct in telling me "this sandwich does not have mustard"? Is saying "there were no ads" when the fact is there were ads correct? Even if we were to just scope it to pre-roll ads, the argument that cable offered "freedom from ads" overall is untrue. Because there were still ads on most cable content, whether that be interruption style ads (which did exist) or pre-roll. Saying the point of cable was freedom from ads is rewriting history. Most of cable had ads from day one. A few channels didn't correct. But that's not all of cable, and that was never the main point of cable. And I did get the reference to the joke. It still doesn't change the fact the Sci-Fi channel had ads since its inception and yet you somehow didn't notice until recently, which was my whole point.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  when your entire argument becomes about a made-up scenario you know that you've lost the point. "well what if ads were defined in this way, wouldn't the conclusion be that I'm rite!!!!!". they're not defined in that way.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    > when people talk about cable not having ads, they mean programming didn't get interrupted to deliver ads. When your entire argument becomes the massive logical inconsistency of "it's not ads because it's not this one type of ad" (see: it's not mustard because it's not grey poupon), misremembering history (Netflix was streaming in the 90s), and yet is also still ignoring facts (most basic cable channels did have interruption style ads), you know you're detached from reality. According to sources above cable networks made $45M in advertising in 1980 in 1980s dollars, 138M in 2023 dollars. Just a few years into major nationwide networks really getting into it and cable still being a pretty niche market. Somehow they were making millions in ads not having ads according to your logically inconsistent reality.

vel0city 3y ago

I go to a restaurant. I ask the waiter, "does this sandwich have mustard on it?" The waiter responds "No, this sandwich does not have mustard." I order the sandwich and find it has loads of yellow mustard on it. I go to the waiter and ask what gives, and he replies "well, it doesn't have any Grey Poupon." Was the waiter correct in telling me "this sandwich does not have mustard"? Is saying "there were no ads" when the fact is there were ads correct? Even if we were to just scope it to pre-roll ads, the argument that cable offered "freedom from ads" overall is untrue. Because there were still ads on most cable content, whether that be interruption style ads (which did exist) or pre-roll. Saying the point of cable was freedom from ads is rewriting history. Most of cable had ads from day one. A few channels didn't correct. But that's not all of cable, and that was never the main point of cable. And I did get the reference to the joke. It still doesn't change the fact the Sci-Fi channel had ads since its inception and yet you somehow didn't notice until recently, which was my whole point.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
when your entire argument becomes about a made-up scenario you know that you've lost the point. "well what if ads were defined in this way, wouldn't the conclusion be that I'm rite!!!!!". they're not defined in that way.
- vel0city 3y ago
  > when people talk about cable not having ads, they mean programming didn't get interrupted to deliver ads. When your entire argument becomes the massive logical inconsistency of "it's not ads because it's not this one type of ad" (see: it's not mustard because it's not grey poupon), misremembering history (Netflix was streaming in the 90s), and yet is also still ignoring facts (most basic cable channels did have interruption style ads), you know you're detached from reality. According to sources above cable networks made $45M in advertising in 1980 in 1980s dollars, 138M in 2023 dollars. Just a few years into major nationwide networks really getting into it and cable still being a pretty niche market. Somehow they were making millions in ads not having ads according to your logically inconsistent reality.