I'm Finally Going To Write the History Channel...

[Stealth Hunter]

I can't take it anymore. I used to love their channel, but now, all they've got is religious crap, truckers driving in the nothern-most hemisphere, loggers hacking trees up, the history of sex, and stuff about the universe. Almost forget their UFO "hunters" and monster hunters, which amount to little more than a bunch of idiots running around with cameras pointed at THEMSELVES whilst saying, "Something just brushed up against my ankle! WAIT- DID YOU SEE THAT?" Couldn't see it, bud; camera was focused on you.

I'll admit, they've still got a few good programs on, like Dogfights and Modern Marvels, but what has happened to their once great selection?

What happened to all the good programs they used to have, like Mail Call and World War II in Color? What happened to the programs about the Romans, Greeks, Middle Ages, and Imperial era?

Why is it that 90% of their programming schedule contains reality shows? Reality shows aren't history; hell, over half of 'em aren't even real! And what's will all the scientific things, which should be on the Discovery Channel (which has now become almost just as bad with the reality shows)?

I don't really know if this is going to make any kind of difference, and I'm fairly certain it won't, but we've at least got to protest this junk. I don't mind the shows themselves because they're actually pretty interesting, but I watch the History Channel for history, not for anything else.

If you're also tired of it, then feel free to join in.

[FIREWALL]

Sadly it's all about MONEY. :yep:

[Platapus]

I totally agree.

The history channel used to be my favourite channel back when I watched TV. But sadly it changed just like you posted.

My recommendation, write a real postal letter vice sending them an E-mail. E-mail is still too easy to delete (sometimes automatically) while if someone takes the time to write an actual letter, it still carries more weight.

Good luck with it, and don't forget to write letters to the current sponsors, they DO care if they are losing their demographic.

[SUBMAN1]

Nothing wrong with History Channel. Extreme Marksmen is on right now. Check it!

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

Nothing wrong with History Channel. Extreme Marksmen is on right now. Check it!

-S

Other than the fact most of the history is missing.:roll:

[SUBMAN1]

Nothing wrong with History Channel. Extreme Marksmen is on right now. Check it!

-S
Other than the fact most of the history is missing.:roll:Just went looking for a religious program in the guide - there are none! At least not for 2 weeks.

-S

PS. Though I consider religion a very important part of history. They should have more of it.

[Raptor1]

I completely agree, From time to time I saw some interesting stuff about WWI/WWII, The Romans or something like that (Aside from some of their better programs like Dogfights), But usually it's completely bracketed by stuff that has absolutely no relation to history...

[Stealth Hunter]

Nothing wrong with History Channel. Extreme Marksmen is on right now. Check it!

-S
Other than the fact most of the history is missing.:roll:Just went looking for a religious program in the guide - there are none! At least not for 2 weeks.

-S

They were discussing the Gospel of Judas just yesterday and right after that, they brought on the "Bible Code", followed later that night with a program about the end of the world according to Revelations.

[Blacklight]

and stuff about the universe

HEY !! Don't mock The Universe !!! It's one of my favorite shows !!! And The Universe has a lot to do with History actually.

Discovery Channel has gotten worse too. It seems all their programming lately has become... Bigfoot, UFO's, more Bigfoot, Ghost stories, etc....

[SUBMAN1]

They were discussing the Gospel of Judas just yesterday and right after that, they brought on the "Bible Code", followed later that night with a program about the end of the world according to Revelations.Religion was the most important aspect to study of ancient man, and today regardless of how athiests twist it, it is still extremely important with 95% (Yes, athiests only make up 5% of the world population, though a very vocal one) of the worlds population following it in their daily lives. So get used to it I would say. History channel is doing its job since religion tells you what motivates man.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

and stuff about the universe

HEY !! Don't mock The Universe !!! It's one of my favorite shows !!!

Discovery Channel has gotten worse too. It seems all their programming lately has become... Bigfoot, UFO's, more Bigfoot, Ghost stories, etc....

I like the show, too, but on the History Channel...? Yeah, it's universal history, but don't you think it's more science oriented?

[Blacklight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacklight
Quote:
and stuff about the universe

HEY !! Don't mock The Universe !!! It's one of my favorite shows !!!

Discovery Channel has gotten worse too. It seems all their programming lately has become... Bigfoot, UFO's, more Bigfoot, Ghost stories, etc....


I like the show, too, but on the History Channel...? Yeah, it's universal history, but don't you think it's more science oriented?

I'm going to have to say that that show goes both ways. Yes.. it's science, but also it deals a LOT with the history of the discoveries and the history of various things that they're studying as well. It's kind of a "History of the scientific discoveries" so it would be at home on either channel.

I think another reason that TV in general has gone downhill was that the writers strike killed a lot of shows and caused a vaccume that needs to be cheaply filled....hence... BIGFOOT every time I turn on the Discovery Channel and Ice Road Truckers when I turn on History. Reality shows are easy and very very cheap to produce. That's why there's so many of the damned things now. The Bigfoot stuff is just cheap filler they bought to drop into the gap.

[Stealth Hunter]

They were discussing the Gospel of Judas just yesterday and right after that, they brought on the "Bible Code", followed later that night with a program about the end of the world according to Revelations.Religion was the most important aspect to study of ancient man, and today regardless of how athiests twist it, it is still extremely important with 95% (Yes, athiests only make up 5% of the world population, though a very vocal one) of the worlds population following it in their daily lives. So get used to it I would say.

-S

I'm talking about programs that focus on nothing more than topics like "Who Was Jesus?" (popular around Christmas and Easter) and "History in the Bible". The Bible is not a history book and Jesus... what has he got to do with history? How are we even sure he was REAL to begin with?

And if they're going to study religion, then why do they just focus on Christianity and not the more interesting religions like Paganism and Shintoism? What about Judaism and Islam? What about Hinduism and Buddhism?

[SUBMAN1]

I'm talking about programs that focus on nothing more than topics like "Who Was Jesus?" (popular around Christmas and Easter) and "History in the Bible". The Bible is not a history book and Jesus... what has he got to do with history? How are we even sure he was REAL to begin with?

And if they're going to study religion, then why do they just focus on Christianity and not the more interesting religions like Paganism and Shintoism? What about Judaism and Islam? What about Hinduism and Buddhism?Thats the funniest sh*t I have ever read! How do we know Jesus lived? There is more documented evidence on him than any person in HISTORY! Don't make me laugh if you want a decent answer!. i will come back to this in a sec.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=300270

What the hell has that got to do with history?:doh:

[Blacklight]

I'm talking about programs that focus on nothing more than topics like "Who Was Jesus?" (popular around Christmas and Easter) and "History in the Bible". The Bible is not a history book and Jesus... what has he got to do with history? How are we even sure he was REAL to begin with?

And if they're going to study religion, then why do they just focus on Christianity and not the more interesting religions like Paganism and Shintoism? What about Judaism and Islam? What about Hinduism and Buddhism?

As much as I hate to admit it, we live in a fundamentalist Christian United States. The religious right are a LOT more numerous than people who would be interested in those other religions unfortunately. It's demographics and money.

[Stealth Hunter]

I'm talking about programs that focus on nothing more than topics like "Who Was Jesus?" (popular around Christmas and Easter) and "History in the Bible". The Bible is not a history book and Jesus... what has he got to do with history? How are we even sure he was REAL to begin with?

And if they're going to study religion, then why do they just focus on Christianity and not the more interesting religions like Paganism and Shintoism? What about Judaism and Islam? What about Hinduism and Buddhism?Thats the funniest sh*t I have ever read! How do we know Jesus lived? There is more documented evidence on him than any person in HISTORY! Don't make me laugh if you want a decent answer!. i will come back to this in a sec.

-S

Not really. If he's so well documented, why is his childhood completely omitted from the Bible?:hmm:

They never say what he looked like, either. Ever notice how all the pictures you see of him reflect whites and Europeans (excluding the Asian interpretation of him). He would NOT be white. He would look Middle-Eastern and could have possibly even been black.

What are you talking about, SUB? History in that? No, no, no, no, and no.

[Raptor1]

I do agree that some shows about religion are related to History, But how is "Ice Road Truckers" related?

[SUBMAN1]

As much as I hate to admit it, we live in a fundamentalist Christian United States. The religious right are a LOT more numerous than people who would be interested in those other religions unfortunately. It's demographics and money.Excellent point. I would personally like to watch more about Christianity than any other religion. Plain and simple - its part of our heritage. A show on Hinduism would be interested persay, but not program after program.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Not really. If he's so well documented, why is his childhood completely omitted from the Bible?:hmm:

They never say what he looked like, either. Ever notice how all the pictures you see of him reflect whites and Europeans (excluding the Asian interpretation of him). He would NOT be white. He would look Middle-Eastern and could have possibly even been black.

What are you talking about, SUB? History in that? No, no, no, no, and no.Let's put it this way, we have more proof that Jesus existed than we do about Julius Ceasar. Way more! To the point where we could question that Julius Ceasar even existed because not so much evidence exists about him.

By the way, his great works weren't done during his childhood, hence why a lot of it is ommited, but not all as you say. There is plenty on his chilhood, but its minor by comparisson.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

:rotfl: :rotfl:

I have NEVER in all my years heard anything funnier!

:rotfl: :rotfl:

For the love of your GOD, man, use COMMON SENSE. Julius Caesar did exist. We've got proof that he existed. We know details of his exploits and what happened with him as a boy and we know about his tyrannical dealings as a general and later emperor of the Roman Empire, the most powerful empire on the face of the earth! If you're denying his existence, you might as well say that Tutankhamen never existed!:rotfl: We don't have many facts on him, but we've got his BODY. We KNOW he existed.

[Platapus]

Other than religious texts what other sources do we have for the life of Jesus?

[SUBMAN1]

:rotfl: :rotfl:

I have NEVER in all my years heard anything funnier!

:rotfl: :rotfl:

For the love of your GOD, man, use COMMON SENSE. Julius Caesar did exist. We've got proof that he existed. We know details of his exploits and what happened with him as a boy and we know about his tyrannical dealings as a general and later emperor of the Roman Empire, the most powerful empire on the face of the earth! If you're denying his existence, you might as well say that Tutankhamen never existed!:rotfl: We don't have many facts on him, but we've got his BODY. We KNOW he existed.Just as you know Jesus existed. Julius Ceasar only has a fraction of the evidence, so why do you discount much more overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed? If you bothered to even watch a History Channel, BBC channel, or Discovery channel (Discovery is very skepticle of religion in the first place) documentary on Jesus, you would already know this. Seems you turned things off to fast, or have never taken a history class.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Other than religious texts what other sources do we have for the life of Jesus?Why don't you start with Rome's distaste for him?

Hahahahaha!

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

SUBMAN, SUBMAN, SUBMAN...

Show me proof Jesus existed.

Your logic makes no sense. Saying that Julius Caesar never existed is basically saying that decades of Rome's history never happened.

Other than botched religious texts that say he existed, what evidence is there for your Jesus? (And as we all know, children, the Islamics say they're right with Religion, the Jews claim the same, the Hindus and Buddhists do, too.)

[SUBMAN1]

SUBMAN, SUBMAN, SUBMAN...

Show me proof Jesus existed.

Your logic makes no sense. Saying that Julius Caesar never existed is basically saying that decades of Rome's history never happened.

Other than botched religious texts that say he existed, what evidence is there for your Jesus? (And as we all know, children, the Islamics say they're right with Religion, the Jews claim the same, the Hindus and Buddhists do, too.)Don't patronize me.

Rome documented he existed as well. All the way to Rome's conversion to Christianity with Constantine.

Patronizing me due to your ignorance of history is showing your education level quite clearly.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

Other than religious texts what other sources do we have for the life of Jesus?Why don't you start with Rome's distaste for him?

Hahahahaha!

-S

Rome's distaste for him... according to the Bible...:roll:

Going to have to try harder than that.:yep: If you look at actual Roman historical texts that aren't in the Bible, there's no mention of Jesus.

Where 'o where could he be?:hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Am I touching a nerve now? Educate yourself and then come back here.

-S

[Raptor1]

Put the flamethrowers down please

This thread is getting derailed really fast

[Stealth Hunter]

SUBMAN, SUBMAN, SUBMAN...

Show me proof Jesus existed.

Your logic makes no sense. Saying that Julius Caesar never existed is basically saying that decades of Rome's history never happened.

Other than botched religious texts that say he existed, what evidence is there for your Jesus? (And as we all know, children, the Islamics say they're right with Religion, the Jews claim the same, the Hindus and Buddhists do, too.)Don't patronize me.

Rome documented he existed as well. All the way to Rome's conversion to Christianity with Constantine.

Patronizing me due to your ignorance of history is showing your education level quite clearly.

-S

Don't you get uppity with me, kiddo.

Where? Where did it document his existence? I see it in the Roman section of the Bible, but not in actual historical texts.

You know what, nevermind. Trying to argue with a brainwashed Christian is like trying to plant a successful corn crop in the middle of the desert: you can try a thousand times, but you'll never get it done.

[Stealth Hunter]

Am I touching a nerve now? Educate yourself and then come back here.

-S

Quite the contrary. As a matter of a fact, I'd say I've struck your nerve, given the fact you're making all these claims and telling me to study more when you're not giving me evidence.

You get me actual quotes from these historical texts, links to websites with these texts, etc. and I'll admit I was wrong.

Now, getting this thread back on the rails, what does everyone else think about the History Channel's horrid programming.

[SUBMAN1]

Don't you get uppity with me, kiddo....Either you are the kiddo here, or you never went very far in education. Which is it?

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

Don't you get uppity with me, kiddo....Either you are the kiddo here, or you never went very far in education. Which is it?

-S

Done arguing. See my post above yours. Time to get the thread back on track.

[SUBMAN1]

Quite the contrary. As a matter of a fact, I'd say I've struck your nerve. You get me actual quotes from these historical texts, links to websites with these texts, etc. and I'll admit I was wrong.Actually, since history and general knowledge is on my side, why don't you get me 'disproving' information? I took history, and any professor would chew you up about now.

-S

[Platapus]

Even the military channel is getting crappy.

I don't understand this. We have about a million specialized cable channels. There is, or can be, a cable channel for every possible subject.

History channels should stick with historical programs. If it aint about dead guys it aint history :lol:

Military channels should stick with military programs.

These specialized channels are for focused viewers. I think all these channels need to remain focused to their original charter.

If necessary, start new channels if there is a new focus. There might be a market for the Military Historical Food channel who knows?

[Stealth Hunter]

Got a phone call. I'm back now.

LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT!

Got a "red herring" here.

I asked you first, SUB. You answer me, then I'll answer you.

[SUBMAN1]

Got a phone call. I'm back now.

LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT!

Got a "red herring" here.

I asked you first, SUB. You answer me, then I'll answer you.
I'm not gonna help you solve your problem or ignorance of history, but I will start you on your journey:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus

Don't rely on Wiki though. It's not even accepted in college as a valid source.

-S

[Sailor Steve]

Okay, here we go. We have much evidence of Caesar's existence, including books written by him, which are considered by most scholars to be authentic. Tacitus' passage on Jesus is there to explain to his Roman readers who the 'Christus' is that Christians believe in. It doesn't claim to be an eyewitness account, and he never claims to have interviewed any eyewitnesses. The same is true of Suetonius and Josephus. There are no official records in existence of Jesus' trial and death, and especially resurrection - just historians repeating what they heard from Christians. Remember that at this time the Romans considered Jews-and Christians-to be athiests, because they didn't believe in the Greek/Roman pantheon. The only thing any of the writers at that time tried to do is explain to a wide audience what the new sect believed. And, given the way they thought, they might have believed it as well. But that doesn't make it 'evidence'.

As to your earlier statement about only 5% of the world being athiest: that doesn't include the millions of 'believers' who don't really believe, but follow the crowd, or give lip service; and it doesn't cover the agnostics who aren't sure what they believe. There are athiests who sound like what the conservative Christians call them - a 'Godless Church', and there are athiests who simply say "I'm sorry, I don't see it". There are as many varieties of nonbelievers as there are of believers.

I'm with Stealth Hunter: there is enough evidence to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth lived and died, but as to the major events as described in the Bible? None.

[SUBMAN1]

Lets examine your statements:

Truly, if one discards the Bible as being unreliable, a non-historical work, then he must discard almost all other literature of antiquity by using the same standards. Consider for instance that there are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today.

No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the “Iliad” by Homer is ranked in 2nd place with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century!

No reputable scholar would doubt the historicity, authenticity, or relevance of Homer’s works, yet they would be apt to state that the Bible is unreliable based off of personal opinion and/or preconceived biases instead of sound reasoning and documented evidences to the contrary.

Interesting, no?

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

I already know about Cornelius, and let me say the exact words that he wrote:

“Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”

I'm going to lay my argument that Jesus never existed to the side for the moment and ask you where the proof is that Jesus was the son of God. So... where's the proof? If this is in fact Jesus that they're talking about and not some other self-proclaimed prophet who was said to have been a messenger of God (which is all Christ translates to), where is the proof?

I'm going to admit that your argument that he did exist is quite swaying... but it confirms none of the events in the Bible. I'm still skeptical of his existence due to the lack of details on his life and there's also the fact that Cornelius' statement doesn't say "Jesus" anywhere in it...

[SUBMAN1]

I already know about Cornelius, and let me say the exact words that he wrote:

“Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”

I'm going to lay my argument that Jesus never existed to the side for the moment and ask you where the proof is that Jesus was the son of God. So... where's the proof? If this is in fact Jesus that they're talking about and not some other self-proclaimed prophet who was said to have been a messenger of God (which is all Christ translates to), where is the proof?

I'm going to admit that your argument that he did exist is quite swaying... but it confirms none of the events in the Bible. I'm still skeptical of his existence due to the lack of details on his life.Then by using the stadards of my above post, all other lives in the history of the world are of the same value - 0.

-S

I repost my post:

Lets examine your statements:

Truly, if one discards the Bible as being unreliable, a non-historical work, then he must discard almost all other literature of antiquity by using the same standards. Consider for instance that there are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today.

No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the “Iliad” by Homer is ranked in 2nd place with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century!

No reputable scholar would doubt the historicity, authenticity, or relevance of Homer’s works, yet they would be apt to state that the Bible is unreliable based off of personal opinion and/or preconceived biases instead of sound reasoning and documented evidences to the contrary.

Interesting, no?

[Stealth Hunter]

Truly, if one discards the Bible as being unreliable, a non-historical work, then he must discard almost all other literature of antiquity by using the same standards. Consider for instance that there are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today.

No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the “Iliad” by Homer is ranked in 2nd place with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century!

Yet that really doesn't prove anything. Just because something is widely accepted by the majority of humans, that doesn't make it true. The Bible also said the sky is a solid, the Earth is flat, the stars are painted onto the sky and earthquakes can shake them from their place, but we know none of that is true. People also once said that the universe was the center of the universe, but that's not true either.

No reputable scholar would doubt the historicity, authenticity, or relevance of Homer’s works, yet they would be apt to state that the Bible is unreliable based off of personal opinion and/or preconceived biases instead of sound reasoning and documented evidences to the contrary.

Homer's work is nothing more than a story, and even then we don't have the original. We have a "copy" of the original, and even then his story has been changed to adapt to so many things (including a song version) over the centuries that we might not even have the original.

We've got a preserved work and we have a very strong idea when and where it came from, but people are still arguing about Homer's existence entirely. Some say it was a group of ancient scholars that actually wrote the story, not a blind Greek man living like a hermit on some forsaken island out in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea.

[SUBMAN1]

Yet that really doesn't prove anything. Just because something is widely accepted by the majority of humans, that doesn't make it true. The Bible also said the sky is a solid, the Earth is flat, the stars are painted onto the sky and earthquakes can shake them from their place, but we know none of that is true.Yes, you represent the 5% that believes in nothing, and its quite obvious. Let me guess, you fall into the same catagory that thinks we never made it to the moon.

Homer's work is nothing more than a story, and even then we don't have the original. We have a "copy" of the original, and even then his story has been changed to adapt to so many things (including a song version) over the centuries that we might not even have the original.

We've got a preserved work and we have a very strong idea when and where it came from, but people are still arguing about Homer's existence entirely. Some say it was a group of ancient scholars that actually wrote the story, not a blind Greek man living like a hermit on some forsaken island out in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea.But your reasoning for discounting the bible is the same. How do you explain its overtake of the romans a couple hundred years later? A cancer? Hahahaha! Go back to your hole and re-bury yourself. I believe you when you tell me the world is flat, really! Just go away! :D The flat world society sees you as a prize!

-S

[Sailor Steve]

No reputable scholar would doubt the historicity, authenticity, or relevance of Homer’s works, yet they would be apt to state that the Bible is unreliable based off of personal opinion and/or preconceived biases instead of sound reasoning and documented evidences to the contrary.

Interesting, no?

-S
No.

While "no one doubts the historicity, authenticity, or relevance of Homers works", neither does anyone believe that the events therein happened as described. No one believes that the Gods directly influenced the battles described, or that Achilles wore magic golden armor with pictures that moved, or that Aphrodite picked up her son Aeneis and held him over her head to save him when he was cornered, or that she personally rescued Paris from being killed by Menelaus and transported him in a black cloud to his bedroom.

Homer's books are accepted as real insofar as they are genuinely ancient documents, but they are certainly not historical records, nor does anyone claim them to be. If you're comparing the Bible to Homer, I have to agree with you.

As for thousands of copies of different manuscripts existing, that only shows that hundreds of scholars who believed them made lots of copies. The earliest manuscripts of the Gospels are datable to, at the very best, seventy-to-one hundred years after the events described. Paul's letters are the earliest datable manuscripts, and even they are at best forty years after the fact. And that doesn't address the other Gospels that were rejected after much debate and argument more than two hundred years later. Up until that time they were accepted just as much as the 'accepted' ones. It could be argued that the Church Fathers who indexed and finalized our present Bible were guided by God, but it can just a easily be argued that they simply kept the ones that agreed with their beliefs at the time and threw out the rest.

[SUBMAN1]

Well, as described by Lady Jane:

The historical reliability of the bible should be tested by the same criteria that all historical documents are tested under:
1- Bibliographical Test (An examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us.)
2- Internal Test (Literary critics still follow Aristotle’s dictum that “…the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.”)
3- External Evidence Test (Do other historical materials confirm or deny the internal testimony provided by the documents themselves? I.e. confirmation by archaeology.)

And until that is done, I don't agree with you, nor does most of the world. This is in reference to the acuraccy of the text.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

Yes, you represent the 5% that believes in nothing, and its quite obvious. Let me guess, you fall into the same catagory that thinks we never made it to the moon.

:smug: :rotfl:

I'm sorry, but it's painfully obvious that you were raised from birth to be a Christian follower, and it is also obvious that you know nothing of Atheism. Oh, and we did make it to the moon, JFK was killed by LHO, the government had nothing to do with 9/11, and Ronald Reagan was not Satan...

How do you explain its overtake of the romans a couple hundred years later? A cancer? Hahahaha! Go back to your hole and re-bury yourself. I believe you when you tell me the world is flat, really! Just go away! :D The flat world society sees you as a prize!

A Roman emperor, perhaps, that made sure all of Rome would become Christian.:yep: When you have a generation of children raised with something, they tend to follow it and stick with it. Nero saw it coming, and he tried to destroy the Christians ahead of time. Unfortunately, his attempt by burning Rome in 94 AD failed...

Why bury myself when you're making yourself look like a damned fool? I'm staying out of the ground to watch more of your ramblings.

And the rest of that statement... for your God's sake, man. If you're going to misquote somebody, make it look professional. I know for a fact the world is not flat; I said the Bible said the world was flat. If you can't understand the sentence I used... then I take so much pity on you.

Just go away. You're a thread spammer who has too much time on his hands and an account on this forum, and unfortunately for you, I can find quite a few others that agree with me on that. You're no better than Wastegate was.

The "Flat World Society"?:rotfl:

To begin with, you totally got my quote wrong. Secondly, I know, as I posted, that the world is not flat. Finally, even if I did think the world was flat, you'd have to come up with something better than the "Flat World Society" to bring about a proper and effective insult.

Your claim about Julius Caesar is so preposterous that I should never have tried to dignify it with a contraire comment. If you keep trying to derail my thread, then I'm calling the mods. This started out as a discussion about the History Channel, and thanks to you, you've turned it into a 3 page discussion about Jesus.

And you misspelled "category".

[Sailor Steve]

All those arguments hold up just as well for any religious test, including the Koran.

Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html

"Most of the world" doesn't agree with you, either. Are the Hindus right, and you wrong? The Muslims? And you are probably not Roman Catholic, so you dismiss some books that the majority adheres to. The world may only be 2% athiest, but Protestants make up less than 6%, and you may not be in the majority of those.

Saying that you are all Christian again belies the number of 'Christians' who don't really believe, not to mention the fact that 'Christians' have considered those differences important enough to kill each other over. I don't agree with people who use that fact to condemn all Christians, or Christianity itself; I merely point out that not all who claim to be Christian truly are.

[SUBMAN1]

I'm sorry, but it's painfully obvious that you were raised from birth to be a Christian follower, and it is also obvious that you know nothing of Atheism. Oh, and we did make it to the moon, JFK was killed by LHO, the government had nothing to do with 9/11, and Ronald Reagan was not Satan...You missed by 5 miles - And yes, i liked Ronald Reagan. Wish he was still pres.

A Roman emperor, perhaps, that made sure all of Rome would become Christian.:yep: When you have a generation of children raised with something, they tend to follow it and stick with it. Nero saw it coming, and he tried to destroy the Christians ahead of time. Unfortunately, his attempt by burning Rome in 94 AD failed...Oh! So you've played us all as idiots then since you know of Christians outside of the bible? Nice. A totally biased opinion, but I assume 95% of us expected this from you, with the other 5% knowing it would happen.

Why bury myself when you're making yourself look like a damned fool? I'm staying out of the ground to watch more of your ramblings. You already buried yourslef. I don't need to help you.

And the rest of that statement... for your God's sake, man. If you're going to misquote somebody, make it look professional. I know for a fact the world is not flat; I said the Bible said the world was flat. If you can't understand the sentence I used... then I take so much pity on you.Oh I didn't misquote you, I just guided you into making this type of post.

Just go away. You're a thread spammer who has too much time on his hands and an account on this forum, and unfortunately for you, I can find quite a few others that agree with me on that. You're no better than Wastegate was.

The "Flat World Society"?:rotfl:
To begin with, you totally got my quote wrong. Secondly, I know, as I posted, that the world is not flat. Finally, even if I did think the world was flat, you'd have to come up with something better than the "Flat World Society" to bring about a proper and effective insult.Hahahaha! Funny! I love it. Mr. NERVE is struck!


Your claim about Julius Caesar is so preposterous that I should never have tried to dignify it with a contraire comment. Now, I am actually and officially ending this pitiful conversation.

And you misspelled "category".I don't think you can end it. But we will see. I could be proven wrong, but I doubt it.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

All those arguments hold up just as well for any religious test, including the Koran. And i expect the same attention to be given.

Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html

"Most of the world" doesn't agree with you, either. Are the Hindus right, and you wrong? The Muslims? And you are probably not Roman Catholic, so you dismiss some books that the majority adheres to. The world may only be 2% athiest, but Protestants make up less than 6%, and you may not be in the majority of those.

Saying that you are all Christian again belies the number of 'Christians' who don't really believe, not to mention the fact that 'Christians' have considered those differences important enough to kill each other over. I don't agree with people who use that fact to condemn all Christians, or Christianity itself; I merely point out that not all who claim to be Christian truly are.I don't think their is a religion that thinks that Jesus did not exist as given in this thread, but I could be wrong. I know at least Muslims acknowledge him, as do Jews, so wouldn't that be a majority regardless? Good thing I was wrong about athiests though - they are a damn cancer, though one that seems to be shrinking.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

I'm done with it. Jesus discussion is over. Let's get the original show back on the road.

[SUBMAN1]

I'm done with it. Jesus discussion is over. Let's get the original show back on the road.As I was aware, religion was the topic for the History channel. How can you avoid it?

-S

[Sailor Steve]

I don't think their is a religion that thinks that Jesus did not exist as given in this thread, but I could be wrong. I know at least Muslims acknowledge him, as do Jews, so wouldn't that be a majority regardless? Good thing I was wrong about athiests though - they are a damn cancer, though one that seems to be shrinking.

-S
I'm not arguing the question of whether he existed. Enough early Christians thought so to make a difference. What I take exception to is the statement that "There is more documented evidence on him than any person in HISTORY!" This is not even remotely true. I also take exception to the idea propounded by people I talk to-and listen to-that the documentation is 'proof' not only of existence, but also of divinity.

As for the History Channel, I stopped watching years ago. I participated in too many discussions at Warships1/Navweaps that started with "Did you see that show on xxxxx last night? Do they ever get ANYTHING right?!"

[Platapus]

I participated in too many discussions at Warships1/Navweaps that started with "Did you see that show on xxxxx last night? Do they ever get ANYTHING right?!"


I am familiar with Navweaps but I don't know "warshhips1" What is that?

Always looking for other naval historical sources

[SUBMAN1]

"There is more documented evidence on him than any person in HISTORY!"I showed evidence above to prove you already wrong here, so how is it that you forgot about that? More documents exist on him than any person in history, at an approximate rate of 100:1 over the second most, which is homer. So what were we talking about then?

-S

[Sailor Steve]

I participated in too many discussions at Warships1/Navweaps that started with "Did you see that show on xxxxx last night? Do they ever get ANYTHING right?!"


I am familiar with Navweaps but I don't know "warshhips1" What is that?

Always looking for other naval historical sources
Warships1 http://warships1.com/ was a fantastic site for naval history, created and hosted by Guy Derdall and Tony DiGiulian. There was a section on all types of warships, with histories, pictures and stats for a huge number of ship classes, plus links to all sorts of technical articles written by some of the top experts in the field. A lot of it is still there, but the ships sections have been closed for some time.

NavWeaps is Tony D.'s effort to keep most of it going, and it's going well. Pretty much everything has been transferred; the only thing really missing is the Ships pages. The discussion boards are still there, I just miss some of the talks that used to go on there.

[Platapus]

Good gouge on the site thanks

[Sailor Steve]

"There is more documented evidence on him than any person in HISTORY!"I showed evidence above to prove you already wrong here, so how is it that you forgot about that?
You've actually shown no evidence at all. You made a statement (more than 5300 Greek manuscripts), but didn't even show where this statement comes from. In fact it comes from a Christian Apologist website http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm , and HE doesn't give any authoritative demonstration. So, where are these 5300+ manuscripts? The truth is, as I said, most of the extant manuscripts are copies of others; so how many original manuscripts actually exist? None. Everything we have is a copy, usually of another copy. So what manuscripts, even copies, are there really? A good start is here:
http://www.bibletranslation.ws/manu.html

As you can see, when we say "Manuscripts", we are not talking about whole copies of the New Testament, we are talking about a copy of one letter here, and a fragment of a Gospel there. None of the letters are records of the life of Jesus - they are all directives on how to live the proper Christian life. In fact, when the epistles refer to him at all they refer to the Lord, never the man. Likewise the Gospels: they tell the story - they never try to read like an actual biography.

More documents exist on him than any person in history, at an approximate rate of 100:1 over the second most, which is homer.
Again, you make a flat statement with no supporting evidence. The 'documents' are all religious in nature, and have no supporting historical record. And again you compare the Bible to Homer, whom we already agree is nothing more than a fabulous set of mythical stories. Are you saying the Bible is the same?

So what were we talking about then?
I was talking about what can be supported by historical records and what can't. You seem to be talking about proving a religious belief is true based on the number of people who believe it.

[orwell]

To attempt to steer this away from pointless bickering about who put their gladius and spear where, I'd like to point out that much of the military stuff, like mail call, moved to another station owned, presumably by Discovery like the history channel is, called the Military Channel on some sort of comcast cable deal. Much of what I've seen on there IS on discovery channel, but only comes on at odd hours compared to round the clock war.

I wish the History channel wasn't so West-centric, I'd love a good history of central and east asia. Besides WWII Japan.

[Sailor Steve]

I wish the History channel wasn't so West-centric, I'd love a good history of central and east asia. Besides WWII Japan.
As I said, I haven't watched in a long time. Before Discovery Channel broke into several specific groups, Wings was just another show they had on. I thoroughly enjoyed it, even to the point of taping every episode I could, but was disappointed that they never did a series on Axis aircraft. Did they ever finally do one, and I just missed it?

[kiwi_2005]

If your sick of the history channel your find alot of history on youtube!;) Especially about the world wars. That place is stacked with history. Ive watched more blacknwhite War documentary's on youtube than anywhere else.

[rifleman13]

I watch the History Channel...

If there's nothing to do!:arrgh!:

But then I play SH3 a lot.:rotfl:
Then there's work, sleeping, reading history books, the Internet... the list goes on.

IMHO, The History Channel is a little one sided like the Al Jazeera of Historiography!

[SUBMAN1]

"There is more documented evidence on him than any person in HISTORY!"I showed evidence above to prove you already wrong here, so how is it that you forgot about that? You've actually shown no evidence at all. You made a statement (more than 5300 Greek manuscripts), but didn't even show where this statement comes from. In fact it comes from a Christian Apologist website http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm , and HE doesn't give any authoritative demonstration. So, where are these 5300+ manuscripts? The truth is, as I said, most of the extant manuscripts are copies of others; so how many original manuscripts actually exist? None. Everything we have is a copy, usually of another copy. So what manuscripts, even copies, are there really? A good start is here:
http://www.bibletranslation.ws/manu.html

As you can see, when we say "Manuscripts", we are not talking about whole copies of the New Testament, we are talking about a copy of one letter here, and a fragment of a Gospel there. None of the letters are records of the life of Jesus - they are all directives on how to live the proper Christian life. In fact, when the epistles refer to him at all they refer to the Lord, never the man. Likewise the Gospels: they tell the story - they never try to read like an actual biography.

More documents exist on him than any person in history, at an approximate rate of 100:1 over the second most, which is homer. Again, you make a flat statement with no supporting evidence. The 'documents' are all religious in nature, and have no supporting historical record. And again you compare the Bible to Homer, whom we already agree is nothing more than a fabulous set of mythical stories. Are you saying the Bible is the same?

So what were we talking about then? I was talking about what can be supported by historical records and what can't. You seem to be talking about proving a religious belief is true based on the number of people who believe it.Incorrect. That is not where I got it from as you can see that your site is lacking additional data of 10K Latin and 9300 early version and 24K manuscripts. As I said, take any history class.

But of course you proved the 5300 Greek versions, religious website or not, on your own. Collaborating data, I love it!

If I keep this up, you'll prove the entire lot for me without lifting a finger on my end!

-S

[Onkel Neal]

I can't take it anymore. I used to love their channel, but now, all they've got is religious crap, truckers driving in the nothern-most hemisphere, loggers hacking trees up, the history of sex, and stuff about the universe. Almost forget their UFO "hunters" and monster hunters, which amount to little more than a bunch of idiots running around with cameras pointed at THEMSELVES whilst saying, "Something just brushed up against my ankle! WAIT- DID YOU SEE THAT?" Couldn't see it, bud; camera was focused on you.

I'll admit, they've still got a few good programs on, like Dogfights and Modern Marvels, but what has happened to their once great selection?

What happened to all the good programs they used to have, like Mail Call and World War II in Color? What happened to the programs about the Romans, Greeks, Middle Ages, and Imperial era?

Why is it that 90% of their programming schedule contains reality shows? Reality shows aren't history; hell, over half of 'em aren't even real! And what's will all the scientific things, which should be on the Discovery Channel (which has now become almost just as bad with the reality shows)?

I don't really know if this is going to make any kind of difference, and I'm fairly certain it won't, but we've at least got to protest this junk. I don't mind the shows themselves because they're actually pretty interesting, but I watch the History Channel for history, not for anything else.

If you're also tired of it, then feel free to join in.

The original topic was the nature of History Channel programming, the abundance of reality shows and the lack of real history programs, let's yank this thread back on topic. Please.

[Sailor Steve]

Done and done. We can continue this here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=881940#post881940

[Schroeder]

I only get to watch the history and military channel on youtube. Can it be that they have become very "patriotic" (biased) after 9/11?. The "Dogfights" shows for example are so horrible biased that it hurts to watch them.http://www.smilevalley.de/smileys/Kotzen/25.gif (http://www.smilevalley.de) Did you ever see an American plane go down in one? They only show American victories (I won't deny that there have been many, but the picture is simply not complete if they show American victories only. There have been many non American aces and they do never get mentioned.)

@Sailor Steve

There has been a show called Wings of the Luftwaffe in the late 80's IIRC. I've seen one of the shows on youtube featuring the FW190.

[Sailor Steve]

@Sailor Steve

There has been a show called Wings of the Luftwaffe in the late 80's IIRC. I've seen one of the shows on youtube featuring the FW190.
Looking back I think you're right. All my videos are in storage so I can't look to see if I have it. Peter Ustinov hosted their 'Wings of the Red Star', or something like that. I just wanted to see them do a 'Wings of the Rising Sun'.

[Platapus]

Although it would take many programs just to cover all the American Aircraft, I do agree that "wings" concentrating on the Aircraft of other nations would be very interesting

[mrbeast]

@Sailor Steve

There has been a show called Wings of the Luftwaffe in the late 80's IIRC. I've seen one of the shows on youtube featuring the FW190.
Looking back I think you're right. All my videos are in storage so I can't look to see if I have it. Peter Ustinov hosted their 'Wings of the Red Star', or something like that. I just wanted to see them do a 'Wings of the Rising Sun'.

I remember 'Wings of the Red Star' on the Discovery Channel, was a very good programme, one of my favourites. Peter Ustinov's narration was excellent and set just the right tone. The scripts were well written and the subjects always interesting. :up:

Not seen it repeated though, at least not in the UK. Which is a shame, infact I think I'll have a hunt round Amazon see if I can find a copy on DVD.

[Morts]

I only get to watch the history and military channel on youtube. Can it be that they have become very "patriotic" (biased) after 9/11?. The "Dogfights" shows for example are so horrible biased that it hurts to watch them.http://www.smilevalley.de/smileys/Kotzen/25.gif (http://www.smilevalley.de/) Did you ever see an American plane go down in one? They only show American victories (I won't deny that there have been many, but the picture is simply not complete if they show American victories only. There have been many non American aces and they do never get mentioned.)


sounds sorta like discovery channel "america has the best blah, the best gah, the best durr, the best umm..." load of crap

[STEED]

I can not understand why anyone would want to watch a awful channel? The History Channel is just a joke, there research makes me laugh and bloody angry at the same time. Whats the point of making a program if the information is a mix of fact & fiction?

Complaining is wast of time I know, they just send you a fob off letter. I will admit I have never written to THC and I suspect they would just do the same thing. I stopped watching THC a long time ago, take some very good advice from me get yourself a good book on the subject you want to know more about.

[orwell]

If your watching for historical accuracy, I'll agree, much of what I've seen seems open to question, interpretation, etc. But I believe the demographic for the THC is not the grogs but the average guy who might have some history/military interest, which is fine by me. I'd rather have people at least recognize what they cover, than the average tube watcher who probably can't even find their country on a map.

[Schroeder]

The problem to me is, that they are sometimes stretching the truth too far. :nope:

[mookiemookie]

I'm with Stealth Hunter on this one. History Channel has strayed way too far away from history and into reality shows like Axe Men and Monster Quest and crap like that.

Wild West Tech was a great show. Dogfights was awesome, as well as Battle 360. The series they did on the Presidents was good. But it seems like shows like that have taken a back seat to modern day crap like Ice Road Truckers.

Check out the History International channel if your cable provider has it. It has a lot more history and a lot fewer reality shows.

[SUBMAN1]

sounds sorta like discovery channel "america has the best blah, the best gah, the best durr, the best umm..." load of crapDon't they? :D Having lots of money as a country tends to lead to that country having the best stuff last I checked.

-S

[Wolfehunter]

I only get to watch the history and military channel on youtube. Can it be that they have become very "patriotic" (biased) after 9/11?. The "Dogfights" shows for example are so horrible biased that it hurts to watch them.http://www.smilevalley.de/smileys/Kotzen/25.gif (http://www.smilevalley.de) Did you ever see an American plane go down in one? They only show American victories (I won't deny that there have been many, but the picture is simply not complete if they show American victories only. There have been many non American aces and they do never get mentioned.)

Its called propaganda.

Anyhow Religion has alot of power in the world. Science has to becarefull not to step on too many toes or a holywar will happen. lol

Thats why the science community doesn't release all the details till they feel the populations is ready to handle serious changes.

Like it was said before its about money. Average people made to look like dogs to the public for a million dollars sells now. http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff110/WolfeXhunter/avatar_6439.gif

[Morts]

sounds sorta like discovery channel "america has the best blah, the best gah, the best durr, the best umm..." load of crapDon't they? :D Having lots of money as a country tends to lead to that country having the best stuff last I checked.

-S

from what ive seen...they havent faced any "worthy" opponent (no..not cause America is "t3h r0xz0rs") but cause you've only fought against enemies with outdated equipment and in alot of cases, poorly trained crews/soldiers.
but sure...ill admit to that american gear doesnt exactly suck either, cause it dont
but i wont say its the best

[Dowly]

Equipment doesnt always say which side is better...

[August]

Equipment doesnt always say which side is better...

Who ever said it did?

[Dowly]

Equipment doesnt always say which side is better...
Who ever said it did?

Who said I said someone said that? ;)

[SUBMAN1]

from what ive seen...they havent faced any "worthy" opponent (no..not cause America is "t3h r0xz0rs") but cause you've only fought against enemies with outdated equipment and in alot of cases, poorly trained crews/soldiers.
but sure...ill admit to that american gear doesnt exactly suck either, cause it dont
but i wont say its the bestBosnia had decent gear, but it still didn't work against its Western equivelents.

-S

[August]

Equipment doesnt always say which side is better...
Who ever said it did?
Who said I said someone said that? ;)

Not me... :sunny:

[Etienne]

The history channel lost my viewership (Most of it, anyway) when they started airing JAG. Seriously, I loathe that show with a passion... And it's history HOW?

These two guys who dive on wrecks and make up a non-existent mystery are also pretty awful.

They do have good movies once in a while. And some OK disaster documentaries... But most of it, these days, is craptacular.

Reality TV should be outlawed.

[August]

Reality TV should be outlawed.

TV in general should be outlawed.

[Officerpuppy]

The history channel lost my viewership (Most of it, anyway) when they started airing JAG.

They air that show on their channel? :rotfl:
Maybe they should just create a new channel like what they did with History International.

If they want to show JAG and all those reality based shows, put it on the new channel, call it History NOW or something catchy :lol:

[Sailor Steve]

I like JAG!

But that's my problem.:rotfl: And I agree - what's it doing on the History Channel?

[Etienne]

The history channel lost my viewership (Most of it, anyway) when they started airing JAG.

They air that show on their channel? :rotfl:

They did when I was in nautical school, at least in Canada. Couple times a day - more often on the French history channel, even.

[DeepIron]

Not really. If he's so well documented, why is his childhood completely omitted from the Bible?Because history, or narrative if you wish, was not written the same as we see today. A persons "entire biography" was not a relevant thing to the Hebrews. It was common practice to write about the significant things a person did, not what kind of cloth was used in his/her diaper or what his/her favorite smashed fruit was...

That would be a style developed by "modern" biographers and TMZ... ;)

[XabbaRus]

These programs are cheap. A proper history program or documentary costs money too make vs cheap camera work of a UFO hunter running around like Blair Witch.

Same has happened here to with UK TV history and the BBC. They are all docu-dramas and though some are good I just wished they showed history instead of some half assed drama program.

[STEED]

Reality TV should be outlawed.

TV in general should be outlawed.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :up:

[STEED]

These programs are cheap. A proper history program or documentary costs money too make vs cheap camera work of a UFO hunter running around like Blair Witch.

Same has happened here to with UK TV history and the BBC. They are all docu-dramas and though some are good I just wished they showed history instead of some half assed drama program.

Well lets getting burning, last one to burn the BBC down is a plonker. :lol:

[Stealth Hunter]

Not really. If he's so well documented, why is his childhood completely omitted from the Bible?Because history, or narrative if you wish, was not written the same as we see today. A persons "entire biography" was not a relevant thing to the Hebrews. It was common practice to write about the significant things a person did, not what kind of cloth was used in his/her diaper or what his/her favorite smashed fruit was...

That would be a style developed by "modern" biographers and TMZ...

Yeah, but it's the son of God... come on. This is supposed to be the most important man in history and yet there's not any full documentation on his childhood...?:roll:;)

Anywho, I sent them the mail yesterday but haven't gotten any reply yet.

[clive bradbury]

Not a historian are you subman? The only evidence accepted for the existence of a person by historians is contemporary. There is NO contemporary evidence of the existence of Jesus, and a host of contemporary evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar.

Some examples:

He wrote a classic piece of military history for a start, commissioned many buildings, instituted laws (which he signed), had contemporary coins struck in his image. Many people who knew him wrote about him.

All this is accepted evidence for the existence of a person. You are merely repeating a very tired argument put forward by many religious people before you, and it has long since been refuted. It is about as dated as the 'irreducible complexity' argument against evolution, I'm afraid.

By the way, non-believers (not all atheist, though), make up the third largest 'religious' group on the planet - some 16% of humanity - not 5%. Though why religious beliefs should influence the content of the History Channel anyway escapes me. I'm an atheist, but would watch a documentary about a religion (as long as it was historical facts about that religion rather than a polemic in favour of the particualar belief). Religion is a significant social and cultural phenomenon, and therefore as worthy of historical study as anything else. Equally, I am pretty sure most religious believers swould soon get sick of purely religious programming, too, and would wish to see a wide range of historical subjects on the channel.

[DeepIron]

Not really. If he's so well documented, why is his childhood completely omitted from the Bible?Because history, or narrative if you wish, was not written the same as we see today. A persons "entire biography" was not a relevant thing to the Hebrews. It was common practice to write about the significant things a person did, not what kind of cloth was used in his/her diaper or what his/her favorite smashed fruit was...

That would be a style developed by "modern" biographers and TMZ...
Yeah, but it's the son of God... come on. This is supposed to be the most important man in history and yet there's not any full documentation on his childhood...?:roll:;)


Well, we could debate/discuss this, in a friendly, constructive way of course, but it will lead back to an "argument of faith" I think.. ;)

Anyway, good luck with your letter. I feel pretty much the way you do, the History Channel has certainly "changed" over the last few years and I seldom watch it anymore. Even when I can find the time to watch the "boob tube" at all...

[Fish]

Actually, since history and general knowledge is on my side, why don't you get me 'disproving' information? I took history, and any professor would chew you up about now.

-S

So, then proof it, must be easy though?
The burden of proof is on your site.

[Fish]

[ Let me guess, you fall into the same catagory that thinks we never made it to the moon.

-S

Cheap shot.

[Ducimus]

History channel is indeed sucking these days. When i flip through the guide and see an evening full of ice road truckers and axe men. WTF is that all about? I LIKED shows like Mail call, and that other one where this guy would look at ancient weaponry. Where'd they go? History channel i think should be renamed to "The Dude's channel". Its all just guy stuff, no problem with that, except its supposed to be the HISTORY channel.


Most of the crap i like to watch, is now on the military channel, which shows a whole lot of reruns. Most of the time, the same episode of some show, 4 times a day. Kind of a disappointment.

[Platapus]

<munching on popcorn>

Anyone want any?

[August]

There was this one series with a Brit father and son team who would showcase all the old English battlefields, forget the name of it, but i thought it was a great show.

The one they did about the Roman defeat of Queen Bodiccea's army in the oddly named "Battle of Watling street" was my favorite.

[Stealth Hunter]

<munching on popcorn>

Anyone want any?

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g17/Sgt-Smithy/Motivators/mj_popcorn.gif