# HR20 keyword recording PPV chanels



## puppypuppy (Nov 26, 2001)

Hey with my Tivo HD unit it would not record PPV programs that matched keywords, etc. But the New HR20 keeps trying to record stuff off the PPV channels. Is this something I have set up wrong or is this a missing feature that I'm just going to have to learn to live without.


----------



## joed32 (Jul 9, 2005)

puppypuppy said:


> Hey with my Tivo HD unit it would not record PPV programs that matched keywords, etc. But the New HR20 keeps trying to record stuff off the PPV channels. Is this something I have set up wrong or is this a missing feature that I'm just going to have to learn to live without.


You're not doing anything wrong, it just works that way for now. I just search and then pick our exactly which showing I want to record. If it's PPV then I don't bother. A fix has been in the works for a long time now but no results yet.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Remember that if your HR20 records a PPV show, you will NOT be charged for it unless you watch it. There is no fee for recording and deleting an unwatched PPV.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

If you have an HR20-700
And you have received the latest software update: 0x1EA

You can modify your search to add: *NNOT PPV * to the end of the serach to exclude the PPV category.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> If you have an HR20-700
> And you have received the latest software update: 0x1EA
> 
> You can modify your search to add: *NNOT PPV * to the end of the serach to exclude the PPV category.


This is what I mean when I say the HR20 is not well thought out. It's nice that there is a way that you can not include PPV in the search. But why not put the option in some non-computer-ease way? Why not have a checkbox or some other visual for the option? The default would be "Don't include PPV" or something to that effect.

I would consider NNOT for the more advanced crowd of users, so I think it's fine to have that option, but consider that 95% of the people won't remember that - nor should they, especially when most people would not want to include PPV in their searches in the first place.

Once again, this is evidence to me that this box is being developed without considering who their users are. Why force a user to remember technical terms if they don't have to?


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

RS4 said:


> This is what I mean when I say the HR20 is not well thought out. It's nice that there is a way that you can not include PPV in the search. But why not put the option in some non-computer-ease way? Why not have a checkbox or some other visual for the option? The default would be "Don't include PPV" or something to that effect.
> 
> I would consider NNOT for the more advanced crowd of users, so I think it's fine to have that option, but consider that 95% of the people won't remember that - nor should they, especially when most people would not want to include PPV in their searches in the first place.
> 
> Once again, this is evidence to me that this box is being developed without considering who their users are. Why force a user to remember technical terms if they don't have to?


Oh brother....

Because the terms ARE intended for the more ADVANCED searching crowd.
The boolean additions NNOT AAND AANY are not for casual searchers...


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

We all love Earl (well, most of us do, except the whiners and complainers), but his typing sometimes leaves a little to be desired. I think the second 'N' is a mistype and the phrase should be "NOT PPV".

I think having the option of seeing what's available in PPV that matches my criteria is a good thing. I have the choice of whether I want to pay for it or not, but at least I know it's there. And then I have the option of excluding PPV if I want. What's wrong with that?

However, there are some posters here who would complain if the HR20 was to get up, find you, tap you one the shoulder and tell you it's recorded your show and then ask when you want to watch it!! They would probably say it hasn't got the same accent as TiVo! 



ETA: Sorry Earl, looks like I was wrong about the NNOT - but not about your typing skills


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

TonyTheTiger said:


> ETA: Sorry Earl, looks like I was wrong about the NNOT - but not about your typing skills




NNOT is the command... and yes... at 130wpm, I do have room to improve a bit..


----------



## milominderbinder (Dec 18, 2006)

ebonovic said:


> If you have an HR20-700
> And you have received the latest software update: 0x1EA
> 
> You can modify your search to add: *NNOT PPV * to the end of the serach to exclude the PPV category.


Earl,

In the Enhanced Search FAQ, I did not have the PPV filter. I updated to show this now:

*Special Categories*
You can add these special category filters to your search:
*HDTV* for just HD programs or *NNOT HDTV* for just SD programs 
*VOD* for only DIRECTV on Demand programs or *NNOT VOD* for no Video on Demand programs
*PPV* for just Pay Per View programs or *NNOT PPV* for no PPV programs

Are there any others?

- Craig


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

milominderbinder said:


> Are there any others?


Any category name... like

AAND HD
NNOT HD

AAND COMEDY
NNOT COMEDY

I would have to look up the other standard category names (Which are available in the search wizard screens)


----------



## milominderbinder (Dec 18, 2006)

ebonovic said:


> Any category name... like
> 
> AAND HD
> NNOT HD
> ...


Got it. I updated to include that.

Thank you,

Craig


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Just to prove myself so reasonable I'm gonna agree with RS4 on this one. I think that basic search features like this should have simple check boxes etc.

In truth it doesn't bother me, but requiring boolean knowledge to find only HD shows or not PPV is not that great. However it should be easy for them to add if they want to.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> Just to prove myself so reasonable I'm gonna agree with RS4 on this one. I think that basic search features like this should have simple check boxes etc.
> 
> In truth it doesn't bother me, but requiring boolean knowledge to find only HD shows or not PPV is not that great. However it should be easy for them to add if they want to.


Serious question:
Does any DVR platform out there have a check box system, or elaborate search function that will allow you to build your query in an MS ACCESS click, drop type function?

You can only go so far, with an on-screen system... that is driven by a remote control... vs a mouse and keyboard.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

There's a new system called HR20/21 has a check box system. Check out the Fantasy Football team setup screens. You move to the box and press select.

It's only a couple of key items and of course it's only an opinion.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> There's a new system called HR20/21 has a check box system. Check out the Fantasy Football team setup screens. You move to the box and press select.
> 
> It's only a couple of key items and of course it's only an opinion.


I ment for search.

I do know there are check and mark in the HR20.
(Such as mark and delete)


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I'll tell you, sometimes you make your arguments in such a way that makes an HR20/21 supporter like myself consider if you really do have an ulterior motive, you have to do a better job at seeing both sides of an argument. You seem to arguing that this would not be a good thing, surely a way to do this would be a good thing, even if it's not practical. Just like DLB would be a good thing even though it's no big deal to me not to have it.

It doesn't have to be a check box anyway, it could be an option that comes up like the Sports, Reality etc. Selecting HD only for example is a pretty common and fundamental search that I bet appears in some way or other before too long.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> I'll tell you, sometimes you make your arguments in such a way that makes an HR20/21 supporter like myself consider if you really do have an ulterior motive, you have to do a better job at seeing both sides of an argument. You seem to arguing that this would not be a good thing, surely a way to do this would be a good thing, even if it's not practical. Just like DLB would be a good thing even though it's no big deal to me not to have it.
> 
> It doesn't have to be a check box anyway, it could be an option that comes up like the Sports, Reality etc. Selecting HD only for example is a pretty common and fundamental search that I bet appears in some way or other before too long.


I actually clearly see both sides of the argument...

And can completely undestand why it would seem that having check mark boxes, would seem easier.

However... when you take a step back...
How would you implement it on the screen?

Would you have extra line items, one for NNOT, one for AAND, one for AANY... then add the search criteria in each...

BOOLEAN logic without ( ) then have to follow a stick order... how do you make that clear on which order the logic should be applied, with really turning it hard core advanced...

And then... doing all of that, while still keeping it practical enough to do with the RC series remote control... and that it doesn't take 15 minutes to build one query?

I have NOTHING against, more advanced searches... but it gets to a point that it gets to be too impractical when a simpler method (that returns more hits) and allows the user just to select from the final list, the shows they want... instead of having a 100% pure hit on the search..

It would be similar to someone comming up with the perfect query on Google... that they could click on the feel lucky every time, and it takes them to the EXACT page they wanted to go to.

If we had a fully keyboard and fully mouse support for the HR20/21... then it woudl be a lot easier to provide advanced searching options... as the system is more then capable of advanced boolean searches.

You just have a limination on how practical (both functional and time), to get the query into the system.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

ebonovic said:


> I actually clearly see both sides of the argument...


Ahh such "confidence" mixed with only responding to parts of the post.

I am not saying we need full AND/OR just take favorite options such as HD, or Channels I get or not PPV and make them an option. It's really no different to the way you subselect categories, you currently can't say MOVIES AND SPORTS because they are in the same list. I'm not in any way arguing against the boolean logic, so there's not need to keep justifying it, just adding that there are some basic search parameters that would help your average user, while some of the existing one's (category stuff) seem less important.

Again I fail to understand why you argue so strongly against an opinion.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> Oh brother....
> 
> Because the terms ARE intended for the more ADVANCED searching crowd.
> The boolean additions NNOT AAND AANY are not for casual searchers...


Earl, I believe you gave the perfect response of what I expect the programmers are doing at D*. I believe on dbstalk, you're slogan says that you think like an engineer and it shows here. There is absolutely nothing on earth wrong with the advanced search and I applaud D* for adding it. However, you folks are limiting that search to a very small crowd for absolutely no reason at at. And, I'm not suggesting that D* get rid of it.

You need to think about the viewing audience. You want them to have an enjoyable experience when using the box. You want to offer them options for including/excluding options and/or features. The chore is that you need to do that in a way that the average user such as my wife could figure out how to use these features without knowing SQL or boolean searching commands.

There are tons of ways to allow folks to search without forcing them to know the level of detail that D* has done here - just look at the internet. One way is to offer some kind of options menu that allows the customer to pick and choose from a group of options. For instance - the search option should offer the channels to look at such as: Channels I receive, PPV, HD only, All channels.

Another way of doing it is to have the logical connectors in a drop-down list the user can select, along with samples.

This is just a couple of small suggestions. The point that I don't think you realize is that D* has developed this dvr for tech savy people for the most part. I'm often amazed at Milo's links for 100 ways to do this and 40 things a Tivo user must know,etc. Heck, to me that is way too complicated. And, it says to me that here is yet another clue that D* has made using the box more complicated then need be.

I'm glad your dvrs are being updated and that D* is installing tons of them. I just wonder how much higher the acceptance would be if they had actually thought about the non-tech users. It's true that our world knows a lot more technical lingo about this stuff because of the internet, etc. It's just a shame that in all of its haste, D* made the classic mistake of forgetting the end user. I believe the saying is something about not seeing the forest for the trees. I've been in development for years and seen it time and time again. Heck, even MS has reputation for not getting anything right until the 3rd release and Vista is following the same pattern as all of the other releases.

The thing that often surprises me is that you seem to get huffy and puffy when anyone tries to point out the obvious, as I tried to do here. I tried to be constructive in my reply, because I thought this would be one time that if you truly read it, you would see that I was trying to be positive and help you.

That's also a shame because I have no doubt that you probably wield a great deal of influence. You're so busy trying to get this box going that you can't look ahead to how this box could offer a wider acceptance if folks would just think through these things.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> Again I fail to understand why you argue so strongly against an opinion.


Where am I strongly against the opinion?

Just because I am continue the discussion... to point out it is not as simple as... "add checkboxes"... doesn't mean I dont' like the idea.

Heck... someone might come up with a real slick solution to do it.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> Where am I strongly against the opinion?
> 
> Just because I am continue the discussion... to point out it is not as simple as... "add checkboxes"... doesn't mean I dont' like the idea.
> 
> Heck... someone might come up with a real slick solution to do it.


I admit that I don't know the structure for the search in the D* dvrs. Is it possible to take a pic and post it here? I would actually like to look at it to possibly offer suggestions.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

RS4 said:


> Earl, I believe you gave the perfect response of what I expect the programmers are doing at D*. I believe on dbstalk, you're slogan says that you think like an engineer and it shows here. There is absolutely nothing on earth wrong with the advanced search and I applaud D* for adding it. However, you folks are limiting that search to a very small crowd for absolutely no reason at at. And, I'm not suggesting that D* get rid of it.
> 
> You need to think about the viewing audience. You want them to have an enjoyable experience when using the box. You want to offer them options for including/excluding options and/or features. The chore is that you need to do that in a way that the average user such as my wife could figure out how to use these features without knowing SQL or boolean searching commands.
> 
> ...


You all keep stating that I am getting huffy and puffy...

I am having a discussion with you all.. .but yet, you want to keep bring it down to the gutter level...

You want to discuss how to implement those ideas? 
Let's go... lets discuss.

But hey... whats the point.

You already have your pre-concieved notion about anything I am going to say... so it is just an exercise in futility.

You are very much correct.... I do think like an engineer...
And engineer that has spent the last 12 years, building systems for other people to use...

And one thing I have learned in that 12 years.... 
People want certain things... but don't think about the implication of developing those things.

Would it be great to have check boxes, or more wizards on the search screen... but at what cost?

Will it take 15 minutes to input that query, because the remote control and the navigation limits of that particular type of input will take that long to input it.

5 more wizard screens... what kind of impact would that have to those just want to do a simple search..

Everything in the system (including the TiVo), isn't just... sure lets make it do it. Everything has an impact...

And at the end of the days... the Engineers have to make it work...
Not the artistic people that come up with what they want it to look like...
Not the analysis that say that feature needs to be there..

No... it is the people that have to write the code, and link it all together... that have to attempt to overcome those limitation.

I can't tell you how many times, I have built something that EXACTLY 100% matches what the client/customer has asked for... but when they started to use it... it really didn't do what they wanted.... even though it is EXACTLY what they want.

So if you want to have a discussion on it.... I am all for it.

If you want to continue to attack me... Well.. lets say... I have had just enough of it.

If you want to throw "wishes" out there... that is why we maintain a pretty signficant lists of Wishes for the HR20/21 platform... that are submitted by users...

--------

The tips list..

So? You keep bring that up...
Over the years here on TCF... I have seen NUMEROUS tips and FAQs on how to use the system... Books dedicated on how to use the TiVo system.

What is the problem with building a system, that straight-up works... you hit record... it records... you hit play it hit plays...

But then there are features, that are there for power users... those that want to figure out how to do more advanced things...

And again for those lists....
You have a population of people that are attempting to use a NEW system EXACTLY the same as an old system they were used to.... So yes... there is going to be a list of "how did you use to do it -> how do you do it now"

So yes.... as you say...
I will huff
and I will puff
and I will blow that theory of your's that the HR20 is a porly designed system out of the water..

You wanna go...
Lets go....

You write out of both sides of your mouth...
You yourself, get all huffy-and-puffy when discussion is not the way you want it... and you just wanted to provided "facts" on the situation.

So here I was... posting facts on the HR20 and a new feature it has...
But yet, you do what you were so adimmently against just a week ago... doing the same thing.

And enough... is enough.

You have this deep passion/hatred for the HR20 and the fact that DirecTV has gone away from the TiVo platform..

You refuse to pony up the money to use one yourself, but pretty much try to proclaim your self as an expert on understanding how crappy it is... and how poorly thought out it was.

As the phrase goes... squat or get off the pot.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Firstly I should say that overall your insight is excellent and valuable, but I have to say I do agree that you tend to get very defensive when anyone makes a negative comment about the HR20, even those who generally like it. Huffy and Puffy works for me


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> You all keep stating that I am getting huffy and puffy...
> 
> I am having a discussion with you all.. .but yet, you want to keep bring it down to the gutter level...
> 
> ...


Yup, you're the kind of engineers I worked with. You're so defensive about everything, you can't read what other people plus myself are writing here. Yup, I admit that I can be an emotional person on some of these threads, but I also try to step back and look at the argument, usually at another time - maybe waiting 5 or 10 minutes, then come back around and re-read trying to understand what the other person is saying.

Yes, I admit I have a passion/hatred for the HR20. You know why? D* had the best box in the industry and then came out with some half-way thought out hurried-to-market replacement, and then decided I couldn't try it at home, and oh by the way, it's mine for the next 2 years or just send in the $480 and send the box back. And you expect me to bend over like all of the rest of you and put up with that crap? D* has just become a big bully. Oh sure, they carry a big stick with all of the HD channels, but that still doesn't mean that they haven't come out with a second-rated product, and you just put blinders on or making all kinds of excuses for features that are hard to use or don't quite work.

I believe you are a microcosm of DirecTV - yeah the box works, but we don't have time to figure out if the features flow together or that it requires a tech person to figure out how to use the thing, we've got to get it out the door. What a poor excuse of methodology for developing a product.

Did ya ever think about getting the end-user involved in any of your projects? I sorta doubt it, because they would only cloud the issues. (Oh yeah, I've heard that one a lot. Or - they'll slow us down, we have dealines to meet.) Did ya ever think about making sure that someone is responsible for the over-all design so that the same technique is used for all of the features? Did ya ever stop and think about the folks that were going to use your product?

I was on a project one time with 450 other people - huge. It turned out that the only people who knew the over-all design were the outside groups like the modeling and test group that I was a part of. Not one of those programmers, designers, and/or architects new the over-all design. Did the product work? Oh yeah, just like the HR20 and VISTA - after about the third release, it actually became a good product.

On the other hand, one of the most successful projects I worked on was when the end-user was included from the beginning. They sat in on the design meetings, they reviewed the prototype with us. They had people during the functional and pilot testing phases. So, we didn't just wait until the end and say here it is. This is how you use it. That product worked right out of the box and everything else that we did were additions - no product rewrites.

I believe this one topic reflects the over-all philosophy of the D* dvr. Instead of considering that there should be more then one way to accomplish a task, you huff and puff about why the chosen method is the only thing that makes sense and then inject 20 other reasons for why the thing can only be done your way. And then you wonder why people don't think the box is intuitive or why there are those of us who won't reward D* for a lousy product.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

RS4 said:


> Yup, you're the kind of engineers I worked with. You're so defensive about everything, you can't read what other people plus myself are writing here. Yup, I admit that I can be an emotional person on some of these threads, but I also try to step back and look at the argument, usually at another time - maybe waiting 5 or 10 minutes, then come back around and re-read trying to understand what the other person is saying.


And you appear to be the type of client that I have worked for, that knows what they want... and be dammed the bigger picture on what it takes to do it.



RS4 said:


> Yes, I admit I have a passion/hatred for the HR20. You know why? D* had the best box in the industry and then came out with some half-way thought out hurried-to-market replacement, and then decided I couldn't try it at home, and oh by the way, it's mine for the next 2 years or just send in the $480 and send the box back. And you expect me to bend over like all of the rest of you and put up with that crap? D* has just become a big bully. Oh sure, they carry a big stick with all of the HD channels, but that still doesn't mean that they haven't come out with a second-rated product, and you just put blinders on or making all kinds of excuses for features that are hard to use or don't quite work.


At the time... I would agree with you that TiVo was the best box in the industry... but for the most part... TiVo was the only box in the industry for the longest time...

And regardless of what it was then... it is what it is today

And then why are you still a DirecTV customer then?
You have your options to get a TiVo... and go to cable...

You have had that option for over a year now...



RS4 said:


> I believe you are a microcosm of DirecTV - yeah the box works, but we don't have time to figure out if the features flow together or that it requires a tech person to figure out how to use the thing, we've got to get it out the door. What a poor excuse of methodology for developing a product.


Really? Guess what...
That is the new world we are in now... almost EVERY product is like that.
It has to get to market before the next guy... if not... you lose major market share to the guy that does get it out first.

Just about EVERY CE product is like that now....

In a perfect world... we would never have a software update... everything would be in the initial release, there would never be a bug.

But that is not the world that we live in, and certainly isn't the world DVR technology is in.



RS4 said:


> Did ya ever think about getting the end-user involved in any of your projects? I sorta doubt it, because they would only cloud the issues. (Oh yeah, I've heard that one a lot. Or - they'll slow us down, we have dealines to meet.) Did ya ever think about making sure that someone is responsible for the over-all design so that the same technique is used for all of the features? Did ya ever stop and think about the folks that were going to use your product?


Oh and yes... In pretty much all the projects I have been involved in... the client/end user is there... and the they are active participants... they approve the designs, before the work is done. They tells us what they want... and it is done.

I have spent months, with user session to determin functionaly... where icons are going to sit... what they are going to do... what color they are going to be.... only to build to exactly what those users wanted, and have them say it just doesn't work the way they wanted it to.

But hey... you already know me... as you think I am similar to someone you have worked before...

---

If you don't think DirecTV has done the same, then you are sorely mistaken.
They have cross sections of their targeted user base that has worked with the system... and have provided feedback... and is the reason why you are seeing a 2nd GUI major GUI update in the latest.

Did you ever stop to think that the "end user" in this case is about 20 million different people, all which have what they think is the perfect way to do it?



RS4 said:


> I was on a project one time with 450 other people - huge. It turned out that the only people who knew the over-all design were the outside groups like the modeling and test group that I was a part of. Not one of those programmers, designers, and/or architects new the over-all design. Did the product work? Oh yeah, just like the HR20 and VISTA - after about the third release, it actually became a good product.
> 
> On the other hand, one of the most successful projects I worked on was when the end-user was included from the beginning. They sat in on the design meetings, they reviewed the prototype with us. They had people during the functional and pilot testing phases. So, we didn't just wait until the end and say here it is. This is how you use it. That product worked right out of the box and everything else that we did were additions - no product rewrites.


Every project is different... I have been on projects with over 200 people... on projects with 10... some that have had client as part of the development team... some that were hands off...

With varying degree of success. Every project has factors that are so much more then raw numbers.

Yes... user pilots... testing... ect... they have all been done... they all have varrying results on the end of the project... but hey... you know that...

You been involved in projects...



RS4 said:


> I believe this one topic reflects the over-all philosophy of the D* dvr. Instead of considering that there should be more then one way to accomplish a task, you huff and puff about why the chosen method is the only thing that makes sense and then inject 20 other reasons for why the thing can only be done your way. And then you wonder why people don't think the box is intuitive or why there are those of us who won't reward D* for a lousy product.


I believe this one topic reflects the overall-attitude of some of the users in the forum world.

If it isn't the way they want to do it... it is wrong.
Regardless of the reasons on why it is done the way it is....

And no one is going to explain them the differ.
They don't care what the reason is... they always have a better way of doing it.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> And you appear to be the type of client that I have worked for, that knows what they want... and be dammed the bigger picture on what it takes to do it.
> 
> At the time... I would agree with you that TiVo was the best box in the industry... but for the most part... TiVo was the only box in the industry for the longest time...
> 
> ...


He he.... looks like your set in your ways and don't really want any help. You keep improving the HR20/21 for the 'advanced' user because it's clear you don't want to think about the common user. In the mean time, I'll continue pointing out why the box is second-rated.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

For Pete's sake give it a rest!

We KNOW your opinion. You state it every opportunity you get. You and a few others - equally for and against the HR2x, just take every thread and turn it into the same broken record.

We get it! Let it rest! Allow people to find out for themselves without you preaching like a bad evangelist any time anyone posts anything!

Earl, I'm surprised you even bother with a response, which I guess is just as bad as it encourages the situation.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

TonyTheTiger said:


> Earl, I'm surprised you even bother with a response, which I guess is just as bad as it encourages the situation.


I know... lapse in judgement on my part.


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

TonyTheTiger said:


> For Pete's sake give it a rest!
> 
> We KNOW your opinion. You state it every opportunity you get. You and a few others - equally for and against the HR2x, just take every thread and turn it into the same broken record.
> 
> ...


In the first place, this question had nothing to do with a Tivo. I don't know why there can't be a sub-forum for the D* non-Tivos, but in any case, the thread is here. Therefore, I have as many rights as you to comment on the issue.

My purpose was to point out why D*'s box is considered non-intuitive and to even offer constructive criticism and design assistance to make the D* dvrs easier to use by a wider range of viewers. I also notice that John tired offering an opinion of support. But early decided to get his hackles up instead of taking me up on the offer. That's his prerogative.

However, please keep in mind that D* does not offer any kind of trial program and therefore anyone accepting this box could be making a big financial commitment and is therefore in need of all the information they can get before making a decision.

This is a perfect example of why many Tivo users would prefer a Tivo if given a choice. I believe this is endemic of the whole design and implementation of the D* dvrs and why that in turn will keep the D* dvrs second-rated when compared to Tivos.


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

No-one said you don't hav the right to comment, but FINDING an excuse to do it is over the top, IMO.

Even my request for you to quit is met by ANOTHER attack and ANOTHER opportunity for you to knock D* and the HR20.

Let me repeat - WE GET IT! 

Now leave it alone and get on with your life, if you have one.


Oh and another message for you AND your co-whiners. Please stop trying to present opinions as fact. It makes you look even...well, never mind. PLEASE do us all a favor...

Answer a direct question if you can. If not, simply DON'T POST, OK?


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

TonyTheTiger said:


> No-one said you don't hav the right to comment, but FINDING an excuse to do it is over the top, IMO.
> 
> Even my request for you to quit is met by ANOTHER attack and ANOTHER opportunity for you to knock D* and the HR20.
> 
> ...


Why don't you guys do us a favor and keep the forum focused on HDTivo regardless of what the changed rules are?


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Who are "you guys"? And what gives you the right to tell people what they can and can't post?

If you don't like a post, don't read it - and certainly don't comment in it. It does you no harm in being there.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

RS4 said:


> Why don't you guys do us a favor and keep the forum focused on HDTivo regardless of what the changed rules are?


Why?

The owners made the decision to change the purpose of the forum.

You want to keep discussing the flaws of the DVR+ platform...


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

TonyTheTiger said:


> And what gives you the right to tell people what they can and can't post?.


Now that was funny :up:


----------



## richierich (Jul 10, 2002)

Wow, it's AMAZING how some people can get so HOT & BOTHERED in a forum!!! I'm just here to get INFO and if I don't like the conversation and the way it's headed I go in a different direction. It's like getting into a discussion on politics or religion, you aren't going to convince the other guy that he is wrong and you are right or vice versa so why bother.

I just seek INFO so I can use either my 2 HR10-250s or my newly acquired HR20-700. If it is not as GREAT as my HR10-250, who cares as long as I can get a NICE HD CHANNEL I am HAPPY!!!

It is just a device to give us the HD CHANNELS we want to watch so we can be HAPPY!!! Don't get so BOGGED down with the DEVICE!!! HAVE A GREAT DAY!!!

Also, EARL, I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK AT BRINGING US INFO ABOUT THE LATEST & GREATEST DEVELOPMENTS AND GUESS WHAT IT IS ALL FREE INFO THAT I DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS AT KEEPING US INFORMED!!!


----------



## RS4 (Sep 2, 2001)

ebonovic said:


> Why?
> 
> ...


Common sense...integrity...good manners...decency


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

RS4 said:


> Common sense...integrity...good manners...decency


You could keep the rest of the quote in there.... 
As it is the answer to your own question.

The OWNERS of this forum board, made the change.
Make your recommendations to them.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

what is the male equivalent of female jello wrestling?


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

newsposter said:


> what is the male equivalent of female jello wrestling?


Pudding wrestling


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

JohnB1000 said:


> Pudding wrestling


ok well some in this thread need to go off to the side and do it


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

newsposter said:


> ok well some in this thread need to go off to the side and do it


But what's worse ? The people arguing because, rightly or wrongly, they feel passionate about something or those that just pop in to pass comment on the arguing ?


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

the constant personal bickering is much worse...you can pretty much assure yourself if person A B or C are in a thread it will get personal


----------

