Talk:Rogers TV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

If you would like to read or post comments about Rogers on a website not affiliated with the company, go to http://www.rogers.tv/

This page was obviously written as propaganda for Rogers, referring to shows nobody watches as "popular," and that it's "only available on cable," and a "major selling point."

  • I try to keep the NB stuff accurate. and the only on cable is False as there is one of the stations that broadcasts over UHF-26 in St. Andrew's NB. It is a RTV Affiliate with a very involved community group although to uses its CHCT-TV call leters for most shows.---thee17

To help keep you accurate (thee17): CHCT-TV is licensed to St. Andrews Community Channel Inc. CHCT-TV is not and never has been affilated with RTV or Rogers Communications in any way. All CHCT-TV community progrogramming is public access and produced by volunteers.---TV26

The Rogers people who keep filling this page with Rogers-friendly propaganda need to understand something: "Rogers Television" does not allow anybody who is not a Rogers employee to have a show of their own. NOBODY is allowed to have their own show. Got it? There is no "Wayne's World" with Rogers, and the programs are just normal commercial fare wannabes, like the Daytime show.

"Rogers Television" is the dead remains of what used to be the "PUBLIC-ACESS" channel. The fact that Rogers does not allow people to have their own shows is important, to say the least. If the Rogers people want to keep lying and suggest otherwise, PLEASE tell us what these programs are. Otherwise, please stop lying.

  • That is not correct Shows lik Enfamil nine months is completely public access, Fun-zai is a compleatly puplic access, so are all the TV Bingos, Rogers always takes suggestions for new shows, expeccially if it is something different, and haveing a sponcer always helps as well And some stations are still all community produced in the smaller class 3 stations..

Also using that wording "broke the law" and "illegal" and "charged with" while the proceeding of a court case was not completed successfully, opens you up to a conviction of "Criminal Defamation" which carries a $100,000 fine or imprissionment of upto 2 years so for you benifit i suggest you select your words better---thee17

I'm glad to finally meet the one who is defending Rogers. Eventually, I hope that the people who run wikipedia will clean this propaganda page up, once and for all, because that person is suing Rogers, they did censor him, they did admit it, and the lawsuit is real, and before the courts, and can be verified.

Now, for your points: Enfamil is not public-access, as it was hosted by Erica Ehm, and is now hosted by Amy Sky, and, bearing the name "Enfamil" means it is owned by Enfamil. You have no understanding of what "public-access" is if you're talking about the Bingo shows. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and being polite as to not wipe out your poorly-written submissions, but no, there is not one single show on the entire Rogers system that is "public-access." If there is, PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO THE SHOW, THANK YOU. As for that person being jailed? I know libel law, and you don't. If one publishes such things "without cause, reason, or explanation," it is libel. That person does have cause, reason, and explanation, and has court documents to back it up. If you think that person is going to jail, please contact Rogers and see what happens. Learn how to spell, while you're at it.

I just fixed the page again, this time removing your nonsense about volunteer-governed programming. I guess we can just keep coming back and fixing it, back and forth...I'm curious as to what you're getting from them. Do you have a show of your own? Where can I watch it? Please provide a link to your Rogers show, thanks.

NEVER MIND...I just looked up your Funzai show: http://www.4frontfilmservices.com/pjctsimprov06.htm

It is run by a Rogers employee: "Thomas is a professional stage performer who has performed with theatrical groups throughout the Maritime region in comedy, Shakespeare, and more. He’s branched into directing, and currently co-hosts First Local on Rogers Television."

Like I told you, there are no Rogers "public-access" shows run by non-Rogers employees. If there were, then everybody could argue to have one, too. Yes, you can "propose a show," at the Rogers website, but that's only so they can legally say they consider them. It's like writing to a politician–he'll read it, but he won't do anything.

Don't you wonder why that there are no shows in Toronto by non-Rogers employees? Don't you think a film student or a comedian might want to make a name for themselves and get on TV? Do you think anybody wants to watch Rogers terrible and boring shows about cars, money, baby care, and movie reviews? Of course not! Why do you stand up for Rogers? I don't understand.

HERE, again, is your "compleatly puplic" show: http://www.rogerstelevision.com/option.asp?lid=12&rid=19&sid=2403

Scott Thomas is not a Rogers employee, just a volunteer with 3 shows of his own. And the series was produced by improv corp. Another example is The Fishing Musicians, and Acadieman. Where in each of those cases the show was made by a third party and aired on Rogers.

He is an employee. He is part of the staff. I know for a fact that the regular hosts of Rogers properties are paid. This is hardly a man off the street with his own show.

Why is Rogers shoving their imitation car, money, computer, movie review, Regis and Kelly and baby shows down our throats from Toronto?

Why do you think that is good? The "public-access" community channeI was created to give ordinary people ONE PLACE to have a say on the TV that didn't have to go through the whole corporate trip of big money, beautiful people, focus groups, and IMITATING whatever is popular. Don't you think that's a good idea? Don't you think ordinary folks should be able to have ONE CHANNEL on which to speak, if only in their own communities? Well?

I just don't understand people like you at all. I guess you don't believe in free speech. I guess you think everything has to be about the "pros" and "celebrities." Please, explain why you think Rogers is so great. Tell me why people in Barrie should have to watch all that Toronto junk, and why nobody in Toronto can have a wacky "man on the street" show, and why Toronto has to import one from BARRIE so people in Toronto can see how wacky downtown BARRIE looks when the bars close at 2 AM.

Tell me. And, if you can't, please stop turning the Rogers Wikipedia article into something that it isn't, which is to say, propaganda for Rogers. You can say whatever you want about how big they are, but when it comes to the community channel, Rogers stole it and ruined it. Any Wikipedia article should point that out, and point out how BAD Rogers Television is. Crowewiki 08:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides Emfamil there is not one program on "my" rogers television that is like you describe. In NB Rogers Television is truly a community channel. Even if you are having bad experiences those comments do not stand true for the whole or majority of "Rogers Television" which this supposed to me an encyclipedic artical about. Just because it is not in your region doesn't give you the right to remove facts that remain true for mine and other regions of Rogers Television. About 13 years ago when Fundy Cable was the owner of "Fundy Cable 10" they stopped the public access production because all the shows were the same and noone was watching the majority of the programs. So they converted the network to TVNB which produced better quality and the when it was renamed Rogers Television the quality was even more improved. I know the station manager in New Brunswick is very accepting of programming that is different then what has been done in the past. And the people in the London ON region where he was from can attest to his different vision of "Community Television" from the one of where you are from. It sounds like Barrie is probably just suffering from a weak Station Manager. So your view on the "Real" Rogers Television is not that of the whole of Rogers Television. ---thee17

Barrie sufering from a weak manager? What about Toronto? Take a look at all the Rogers outlets for yourself. Anyway, you are also not being fair, for deleting the material about the lawsuit. I don't hav time for this right now, but I'll get back to it, later. I still don't know what you see in Rogers. Isn't it bad enough Rogers has its propaganda everywhere? Does it have to be here, too?Crowewiki 03:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The stuff posted as Espionage needs to be posted in Rogers Cable not Rogers Television. And specific details of an I also renammed the section to legal disputes because nothing is illegal until it is proven successfully in a court of law. Thee17 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How old are you? Have you been to university? Nobody is proved GUILTY until CONVICTED in a court of law. Somebody has SUED and ALLEGED the ILLEGAL activity, with a website to back it up. I'll change it back, later. Why you love Rogers, I don't know, but I'm not obliged to love it, as wellCrowewiki 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am however as a responsable net user obliged to constantly correct inaccuracys on Wikipedia. And you posts violate section 1.4 of the WP:NOT standards policy. Thee17 02:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your posts are also violating the guidelines. "As a responsible net user" you're obliged to update this thing? Guess what–there are a billion other articles which need fixing–why don't you fix them all?

I'm trying to REPORT on an important lawsuit WITH THE WHOLE THING SCANNED IN, while you're trying to sing the praises of an improv comedy show made by a Rogers employee in Saint John. Once the lawsuit is over, you can say whatever you want here, and I don't care. I don't know why you care at all, as Rogers clearly has a miserable attitude towards people who simply want to have their own shows. Don't you agree with the idea that there should be at least ONE darn place for ordinary people in TV? Or does it all have to be about Enfamil and some Canadian celebrity who had a baby?Crowewiki 06:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles here are supposed to be written in a clinical fashion. I'm leaving your ambiguous cheerleading alone, but you keep messing with my lawsuit. I guess there can't be any common ground with you. I'll try just fixing the lawsuit and see what you do. Again, your statement: "I am however as a responsable net user obliged to constantly correct inaccuracys on Wikipedia," seems pretty sad.

You are OBLIGATED to CONSTANTLY fix Wikipedia pages? You have my sympathies.

If you mess with my legal area one more time, I'll just go back to editing the entire page, and removing your unsupported, biased puffery about Rogers. Your choice...

I just got a warning on my talk page. I thought it was from an admin. I WANT an admin to look at this, but it's a very complicated process to contact them. I'll get to it when I have more time. For the time being, I'm going to fix the article again. You need to understand that Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for corporate puffery. Posting nothing but flattering information does not improve wikipedia.

I can't figure out how to contact any of these Wikipedia officials to explain my side, or to send YOU warnings about vandalism. So, I cut the lawsuit thing down to very little and put it near the bottom, and left all your self-serving, unverified propaganda at the top. Happy? How the hell can posting information Rogers doesn't like be "unhelpful?" Anyway, I hope we have reached a happy medium, as it's not as if I can't go to an internet café and do it all over againCrowewiki 06:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untill this edit your posts did not fit the nature of the artical now that it does it won't be touched Thee17 23:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I was posting quite a bit, and it wasn't flattering to Rogers, but at least I could verify it all. I'd still like to put a bunch of "citation needed" all over your glowing material about Rogers, since we are talking about Rogers Television, and as far as their "community channel" goes, they suck. I'm also not afraid of having some Wiki official look at it all, but I can't figure out how to make complaints or report people here. So you say what I do is "vandalism," well, I'd like to do the same to you, but I can't figure out this mess. Maybe it's my old browser in my old Macintosh and it's not working properly, as many websites do for me with my old stuff, but I guess we have a meeting halfway as there seems to be no way to send a simple email to whoever owns this Wiki thing. I still can't understand why you'd defend these people, here, in their "Rogers Television" area, as they have spoiled the "public-access" channel, and thney should be ashamed of it. I hope you got paid for your work.Crowewiki 03:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See how easy that was, you stupid prick? Watchya gonna do? Maybe you should call the police. After all, differing opinions on a retarded internet database is a criminal offense, right? Oh wait...it isn't. Too bad. I was going to respect you guys halfway, but now? Forget it. You wanna edit it back? Fine. Show me respect and I'll show you respect back. Otherwise, forget it. -Mystery man

Dispute Resolution ;; please be able to back up contributions with a cite to a reliable source[edit]

WP:DR is a good place to check if you need help resolving a dispute. Some of the content of this article has been commented out (although not entirely deleted) because it is not consistent with WP:RS.

Please note that statements of personal opinion and unsubstantiated characterizations of living persons are generally not considered acceptable content for any WP article. Such content may, however, be included if: 1) it can be supported by a reliable source; 2) is presented in a neutral and professional tone, and; 3) is clearly relevant to the subject matter of the article. dr.ef.tymac 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Information[edit]

It is hard sometimes to provide sources for some stuff that you actually know something about. And a lot of stuff has been posted here that has been incorrect. Thee17 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are understandable, the problem is, it doesn't do anyone any good if the article contains content that looks more like an argument than an encyclopedia entry. It loses all credibility with serious readers and contributors. At the very least, all statements (uncited or not) should be phrased so they do not merge facts with conclusions on how those facts should be interpreted. As far as distinguishing fact from opinion that's what this talk page is for. dr.ef.tymac 17:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: I commented out some content that was recently the subject of a factual dispute. A cite is requested, as personal familiarity with facts unfortunately do not constitute adequate substantiation. Also, the level of detail was not appropriate for the article lead section. Please note these actions were not done to take "sides" but to reflect as much neutrality on contested issues as possible until more cites can be added. dr.ef.tymac 17:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goverment Affiliation[edit]

Sourced of partnership are needed. Thee17 (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rogers_TV&oldid=1205092515"