- 1. Solo on TV, Again ( was re: GRM/best ) (score: 1)
- Author: David Hillman <hillman@planet-torque.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:58:21 -0500 (EST)
- Rich Fletcher wrote... I could buy that explanation... if I hadn't just seen "Timbersports" on TV several times this weekend, again. Someone still needs to explain to me, like I'm a six year old; how
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00247.html (9,051 bytes)
- 2. Re: Solo on TV, Again ( was re: GRM/best ) (score: 1)
- Author: JonesMB <jonesmb@arthem.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:22:13 -0600
- I think it is because their sport looks dangerous. Slow moving vehicles navigating cones in a parking lot don't look dangerous. Maybe it is easier to sell a show if it is dangerous. Why else would th
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00248.html (8,853 bytes)
- 3. Re: Solo on TV, Again ( was re: GRM/best ) (score: 1)
- Author: cary alpert <cary_alpert@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:36:26 -0800 (PST)
- So instead of cones, maybe we throw in a few chainsaw corners. Come to close and you lose part of your car!!!! /// autox@autox.team.net mailing list /// /// To unsubscribe send a plain text message t
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00250.html (9,876 bytes)
- 4. Re: Solo on TV, Again ( was re: GRM/best ) (score: 1)
- Author: jeff@winchell.com
- Date: 18 Dec 2001 15:47:03 -0800
- Coming to a Fox TV station near you.... BattleCross Chainsaws, spikes, bumpy sections all appearing at random on the course... it wouldn't take much work to change Forbes Field North Course for this.
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00252.html (10,678 bytes)
- 5. Re: Solo on TV, Again ( was re: GRM/best ) (score: 1)
- Author: Mark Hirt <Mark.Hirt@attbi.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:06:10 -0600
- One word "sponsorship". The lumberjack shows probably buy air time (just like CART) some sponsor pays the bill. Poof your on TV. Of course if SCCA did it they would probably hire Mr. Video to shot th
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00257.html (8,844 bytes)
- 6. Re: Solo on TV, Again ( was re: GRM/best ) (score: 1)
- Author: Matt Murray <mattm@optonline.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 20:29:33 -0500
- I'll forward Rich's dissertation to anyone who wants it, as I just forwarded it to Dave. Matt Murray mattm@optonline.net Copyright 2001, Matthew D. Murray. Permission to reproduce these words on the
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00262.html (8,415 bytes)
- 7. Re: Solo on TV, Again ( was re: GRM/best ) (score: 1)
- Author: "Alan Pozner" <apozner@ptd.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:07:55 -0500
- Mark's got it spot on. Interesting has nothing to do with what gets on TV; all it takes is someone to pay for the airtime. The obvious example is the infomercial : does anyone consider Ron Popiel's "
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00289.html (10,363 bytes)
- 8. Re: Solo on TV, Again ( was re: GRM/best ) (score: 1)
- Author: David Hillman <hillman@planet-torque.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:40:31 -0500 (EST)
- Right, that was my point too, "interesting" has nothing to do with getting on TV. Money does. That still doesn't explain it all though, since I'm willing to bet the market for performance cars and au
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00292.html (8,951 bytes)
- 9. Re: Solo on TV, Again ( was re: GRM/best ) (score: 1)
- Author: "Phil Ethier" <pethier@isd.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 20:56:49 -0600
- True, but ACTION is what people want to see. Because in most motorsports, that's when you get to see action. In road-racing and Nascar and Indycars with today's tires, you seldom see the cars MOVE.
- /html/autox/2001-12/msg00312.html (9,261 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu