Bspn

Mozart

Mozart

G-League
Ok, it's official. ESPN, truly, is the BSPN network. Piksi is right.


For years their shows have been good with the consistent providing the valuable/useful close-captioning on many (but still far too few) of their programs, in particular the "NFL Countdown" programs, as well as their "NFL Primetime" programs, both of which I like to watch to catch up on all the various game-changing plays made by the many teams that play on each weekend.


But, lately, this year, I have yet to see ONE DAMN BSPN program that had ANY closed-captioning on it! That's BS! Serious BS!


10% of any sports market are viewers that MUST have closed-captioning, like in my case with my near-deafness; another 10% of the viewer market like to use the close-captioning so that they can have the tv silent, like on early Sunday mornings with the "NFL Countdown" programs that are best viewed with the captioning on and the sound off for the sake of family members still sleeping.


So right there is 20%--1 out of 5--of the BSPN viewer market being quite reliant on the use of closed-captioning in the major-market programs offered by BSPN...and BSPN decides to eliminate the closed-captioning, based on what? To save money and pee off customers? WTF?


I have sent them nice e-mails, cuss-filled e-mails, threat-with-death e-mails with no responses, save for the automated "we-value-your-input-so-now-go-ph***k-off e-mails that mean nothing, save for being a useless firewall to protect their arses.


BSPN can go to hell. I am boycotting BSPN. Can you please go ahead and send them an e-mail demanding them to restore closed-captioning?


We are lucky to have the Comcast network to not only provide closed-captioning, but they put the two lines on the bottom of the screen, where it belongs. I've sent them many e-mails last year bugg'n them to get the %^#@&## captioning off the top of the screen (three lines!, sheeesh!...Channel 10, get a clue--the consistent three lines on top hiding the backboard and the arc of the from-the-field shots with every telecast--thanks a lot, pal) down to the bottom of the screen with just TWO lines, not three. And the Comcast network DID do that and they DID respond to me personally, so, of course, I have sent them e-mails praising the Lord and sending them virtual flowers, 'n wine, 'n cheese, etc.


I'm VERY glad to have the much-needed closed-captioning available for the Kings games; but, I am pissed off that a bigger, more national corporation, BSPN, simply refuses to use closed-captioning and refuses to communicate with anyone on this issue, apparently.


Piksi is right. ESPN is BSPN.


I don't like to be dissed and hell hath no fury that can match the fury of someone who suffers the on-going indignities of their handicaps.


Use the link below to contact BSPN and give 'em hell, please.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?page=contact/espntv


.
 
Last edited:
It isn't just Piksi. There are many many more on this site that used this expression way before me. Some of them unfortunately got lost along the way but still plenty of them around.
 
Nobody is lucky to have Comcast... But I'm sorry that you're having problems with CC.

ESPN has many a flaw. But, as long as Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon continue to host PTI, they're cool with me. Frankly, I don't watch ESPN enough for it to affect me otherwise.
 
I will write them a message from home, Mozart. I lost some hearing in my ears due to a virus some years ago and now that I'm getting older, I'm losing more. I'm lucky enough to still have hearing. The loss makes me appreciate my hearing more, but sometimes captioning is the only way I can really pick up everything being said.
 
Where in the world did this come from?

Also, how do you come up with your 20% figure? Do you have any resources to show where 10% of the sports tv viewing audience is hearing impaired? Also, how do you figure another 10% of the audience watches it on low volume intentionally? Is that one of those "47% of all statistics are made up on the spot" type statistics? You continue with a rant about the lack of responses (other than the generic automated ones) to your "cuss-filled e-mails" and "threat-with-death e-mails". Do you honestly expect a response to those? Further on, you praise Comcast for providing Closed Captioning by sending them "e-mails praising the Lord and sending them virtual flowers, 'n wine, 'n cheese, etc."

So which is it, curse and "threaten with death" or "praise the Lord"? I tend to think that those two didn't go hand-in-hand.

I hope this thread is some type of joke.
 
C Diddy said:
You continue with a rant about the lack of responses (other than the generic automated ones) to your "cuss-filled e-mails" and "threat-with-death e-mails". Do you honestly expect a response to those? Further on, you praise Comcast for providing Closed Captioning by sending them "e-mails praising the Lord and sending them virtual flowers, 'n wine, 'n cheese, etc."

So which is it, curse and "threaten with death" or "praise the Lord"? I tend to think that those two didn't go hand-in-hand.
Click to expand...
I fail to see what makes the two mutually exclusive.

Mozart appears to be complaining that ESPN is not providing Closed Captioning on it's programming. If the network doesn't provide CC on the broadcast, it doesn't matter whether the provider offers CC on its signal or not. Hence why it's not completely illogical to praise one while damning the other.

By the way, I notice that you conveniently no-sold the part about Mozart sending ESPN nice emails, which was written before the part about him (her?) sending "cuss-filled" emails; I doubt that the latter were sent until after failing to receive a timely response from the former.
 
Last edited:
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
I fail to see what makes the two mutually exclusive.

Mozart appears to be complaining that ESPN is not providing Closed Captioning on it's programming. If the network doesn't provide CC on the broadcast, it doesn't matter whether the provider offers CC on its signal or not. Hence why it's not completely illogical to praise one while damning the other.

By the way, I notice that you conveniently no-sold the part about Mozart sending ESPN nice emails, which was written before the part about him (her?) sending "cuss-filled" emails; I doubt that the latter were sent until after failing to receive a timely response from the former.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't mutually exclusive. But they should be, right?

Also, I didn't "conveniently no-sell" the part about sending cordial emails, I just hold the belief that once you resort to death threats over something so trivial, a brief history of decency is no longer relevant.
 
C Diddy said:
No, they aren't mutually exclusive. But they should be, right?

Also, I didn't "conveniently no-sell" the part about sending cordial emails, I just hold the belief that once you resort to death threats over something so trivial, a brief history of decency is no longer relevant.
Click to expand...
While I don't support the idea of really nasty e-mails (because they are unlikely to help much), closed-captioning is not a trivial thing to those that are deaf or hard of hearing. Maybe you are neither. If so, lucky you.
 
kennadog said:
While I don't support the idea of really nasty e-mails (because they are unlikely to help much), closed-captioning is not a trivial thing to those that are deaf or hard of hearing. Maybe you are neither. If so, lucky you.
Click to expand...

You have taken my sentence out of context. In the sense of what is appropriate to send death threats over, a cable station not providing closed captioning is trivial among them. Closed captioning in itself is not something trivial for those that are deaf or hard of hearing, but the lack of closed captioning is a trivial reason for sending death-threats.
 
Um, I hesitate to be the one to point this out but you're arguing over what is appropriate to send death threats over? Hello? DEATH THREATS? Am I the only one who thinks there is NO REASON ON EARTH to send death threats to a network?
 
VF21 said:
Um, I hesitate to be the one to point this out but you're arguing over what is appropriate to send death threats over? Hello? DEATH THREATS? Am I the only one who thinks there is NO REASON ON EARTH to send death threats to a network?
Click to expand...


I think that's the point I was originally trying to make, but a few others have come to the defense of Mozart and nit-picked my responses. Maybe you chiming in here will help.
 
C Diddy said:
You have taken my sentence out of context. In the sense of what is appropriate to send death threats over, a cable station not providing closed captioning is trivial among them. Closed captioning in itself is not something trivial for those that are deaf or hard of hearing, but the lack of closed captioning is a trivial reason for sending death-threats.
Click to expand...
Actually I quoted the whole statement. The implication of the wording was that you thought closed-captioning was trivial. I assumed that's what the words "something so trivial" as a modifier for closed-captioning meant. I see now that you meant it is trivial in comparison to other reasons for sending e-mailed death threats.

As to whether loss of closed-captioning was an event worthy of death threats, I currently can't imagine what would justify e-mailed death threats, whether the reason was trivial or not. That thinking, on my part, led to my misunderstanding.
 
kennadog said:
Actually I quoted the whole statement. The implication of the wording was that you thought closed-captioning was trivial. I assumed that's what the words "something so trivial" as a modifier for closed-captioning meant. I see now that you meant it is trivial in comparison to other reasons for sending e-mailed death threats.
Click to expand...

I concur. It came across to me as though C Diddy was using the fact that Mozart used the OMGZ0RZ!!~~~111! buzz word "death threats" to conveniently ignore the fact Mozart has a real problem.

It just seemed to me that you (C Diddy) used the "death threat" as a cop-out; that you set up a Straw Man as an excuse to disregard what Mozart was complaining about, whereas I just presumed it was hyperbole written out of poor judgment, and not an actual real death threat, since Occam's Razor tells me that it's highly unlikely that someone would actually come to an online community (where their IP's are surely traceable by authorities) and admit to making actual death threats.

Granted, if Mozart did, in fact, make an actual death threat to some hapless shirt at ESPN, then Mozart is an idiot. And a criminal. But (and call me nutsy, if you like) I don't think that that's what Mozart actually did.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you are nutsy, but I do think Mozart did send death-threats over Closed-Captioning and wasn't just exaggerating in an effort to get the point across. I do hope it is hyperbole and exaggeration, but if its not, I stand by my original response. The entire post seemed out of place and contrived, as if someone did something silly and reached out to an anonymous crowd for support. Once certain individuals saw that it was a person with a disability crying over an alleged injustice, everyone rallied to the defense rather than examine the complaint for what it was, which is a allegation with made-up supporting statistics and an admission of sending death threats electronically to an intern monitoring ESPN's email. After shaving off the complex rationalizations via Occam's Razor that he would know that by coming to a website would track his admission and he would be easily traceable and therefore wouldn't really have done it, I am left with the belief that an irrational person with a hearing disability overreacted to a lack of Closed Captioning and more than likely sent death threats as a response. I find that distasteful. Call me nutsy if you like. ;)
 
See, you are assuming what I saw and felt about the post by Mozart. I basically ignored as irrelevant all the stuff about statistics, death threats and all the other hoopla and hyperbole, etc. Your comments were directed at what I thought was irrelevant information. It obviously wasn't irrelevant to you.

I felt the very simple point was that Mozart could get programs on BSPN with closed-captioning that has now been discontinued for at least some shows and it's upsetting, because it's the only way for him/her (sorry :o) to enjoy those shows. Is that not the real point of the post?

That's what I responded to, anyway. I think it's a darn shame if a network discontinues closed-captioning on shows. Regardless of the actual statistics, I feel fairly comfortable that such an action affects a not insignificant number of people.

It's clear that we read that post from different perspectives, that's all, but you are mistaken about what I responded to in the post and why.
 
Clarifying things a bit

Mr. S£im Citrus said:


I just presumed it was hyperbole written out of poor judgment, and not an actual real death threat, since Occam's Razor tells me that it's highly unlikely that someone would actually come to an online community (where their IP's are surely traceable by authorities) and admit to making actual death threats.

Granted, if Mozart did, in fact, make an actual death threat to some hapless shirt at ESPN, then Mozart is an idiot. And a criminal. But (and call me nutsy, if you like) I don't think that that's what Mozart actually did.
Click to expand...


I lost this thread, as it had been moved a couple of times and I rarely ventured out of the "Rap" thread on account of my shortage of time, so I'm posting this post to clarify things a bit.


Citrus is correct--it was just strictly hyperbole and not an actual action. I only sent them nice, well-worded e-mails (several of them) asking them kindly for responses as to why on earth would they eliminate the CC function; only after a long time of no responses did I finally send them a cuss-filled one with no death threats, nor any kinds of threats whatsoever. I did say to them that I'd not watch ANY BSPN programs anymore and that I'd complain a LOT to a LOT of people about this problem; furthermore, I pointed out to them that, according to my research done in my marketing days in a university, 47 people will complain to others about problems with a company/program, as opposed to 26 people praising the company/program, hence negative news/opinions spreads faster than good stuff.


In retrospect, I should have pointed out that the "death threats" were just strictly hyperbole.


As to the CC-viewer-use stats, I lost the urls that I had that backed up the stats when my computer fatally crashed, so I have to surf for it again, but the stats that I stated in the original post are current facts as far as I understood it at the time of reading the stat facts. Easily 1 out of 5 people find the closed-captioning feature useful, imperfect as it is.


I have ideas of how to improve the CC feature and have been working with a local computer programmer (I live right in the middle of the tv-network-switching company zone), so we'll see how it goes. We are fighting the good-ole-boy network and that is one hard nut to crack.


I hope that this clarifies things a bit and I still don't watch BSPN, but I check it once in a while to see if they've put back on the useful CC function.


And the last time I checked, I have a phallic member. ;-P
 
Some, such as my wife, do not speak English as a first language and it is very handy to have the CC to assist in understanding what is being said. The problem is that it is not a difficult thing to accomplish and it seems that ESPN is being incredibly cheap.
 
Thanks for checking back in with this thread, Mozart. I'm glad that you didn't really send death threats and everything was just an exaggeration. I'm sorry for taking your remarks a bit too seriously. Hopefully ESPN will address the CC issue soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top