voranis
-
Posts
590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by voranis
-
-
> {quote:title=musicalnovelty wrote:}{quote}
> On Thursday, March 26 they have two of the Van Dine Vitaphone mystery shorts scheduled: "Murder on the Pullman" (1932) and "The Week End Mystery" (1932), both starring Donald Meek and John Hamilton. Shorts from this series used to be run on TNT occasionally, but hardly ever on TCM any more.
Has TCM ever shown any of the other Van Dine shorts? I would love to see them all:
The Campus Mystery (1932)
The Crane Poison Case (1932)
Murder in the Pullman (1932)
The Side Show Mystery (1932)
The Skull Murder Mystery (1932)
The Studio Murder Mystery (1932)
The Symphony Murder Mystery (1932)
The Trans-Atlantic Mystery (1932)
The Wall Street Mystery (1932)
The Week End Mystery (1932)
The Clyde Mystery (1931)
The Cole Case (1931)
We ought to petition TCM to have a Van Dine tribute that shows all the shorts!
Robbie
-
> {quote:title=MrBoynton wrote:}{quote}
> "Chicago recommends the following rules, pragmatic rather than logically rigorous but generally accepted: (1) Always capitalize the first and last words both in titles and in subtitles and all other major words (nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and some conjunctions - but see rule 4). (2) Lowercase the articles the, a+, and an. (3) Lowercase prepositions, regardless of length, except when they are stressed ( through in A River Runs Through It ), are used advervally or adjectively ( up in Look Up, down in Turn Down ... etc.), are used as conjunctions ( before in Look Before You Leap, etc.) .... (5) Lowercase the words to or as+ in any grammatical function, for simplicity's sake. ..."
>
> I don't like Chicago's rule on lowercasing prepositions of any length, because to me a long, lowercased preposition looks like a typo. The Bluebook, the bible of legal writing style, has a better rule for capitalizing prepositions, and a simpler guideline overall:
>
> "Capitalize words in a heading or title, including the initial word and any word that immediately follows a colon. Do not capitalize articles, conjunctions, and prepositions when they are four or fewer letters, unless they begin the heading or title, or immediately follow a colon."
>
> That's the rule I go with.
Thanks for the info! I have three grammar books (Warriner's, Simon & Schuster, and Little, Brown), but none really addressed the issue as clearly as the Chicago Manual of Style. I may need to buy that one. Interesting about capitalizing "through" in A River Runs Through It --I did capitalize it when I recorded the movie on TCM. I just cringed at the thought of lowercasing it. Also interesting was capitalizing "before" in Look Before You Leap, which answers another scenario I had questions about.
I was aware that adverbs and adjectives need to be capitalized, but I didn't know about the long conjunction rule. Hmm, "before" wasn't mentioned in Schoolhouse Rock's "Conjunction Junction." :-) Does that apply only to long conjunctions, or to all of them? What does rule (4) say? I thought short conjunctions such as "and" and "or" were supposed to be lowercase. Would "and" need to be capitalized in To Have and Have Not ?
The way I pronounce To Sir, With Love, there is a little stress on "with" because of the pause that I make at the comma (probably because of the influence from the song), so maybe I will capitalize it on that basis.
I agree with you about uncapitalized long prepositions looking like typos. I have so many years of the "fewer than five letters" rule drilled into me in grade school and high school, it's hard to overcome.
Another problem using italics in these messages--certain symbols after the plus sign (a hyphen used as part of a dash, a question mark) seem to cause the plus sign not to be recognized as the italics flag. I had to put a space in between the plus sign and "--" and "?".
Robbie
-
> {quote:title=georgiegirl wrote:}{quote}
> I'm sorry if I insulted you. That was not my purpose for this post. Sigh. I'm sure you could teach me many of the fundamentals of writing, and it would be greatly appreciated if you see me making any blunders and slap me on the wrists. I admire writers very much.
>
Hi georgiegirl,
I was aware that movie titles are supposed to be italicized and I try to do so in my posts, although sometimes I fall back to quotes because it is easier. Also, I don't post much so it's easier for me to use italics than it may be for those who contribute a lot of material in their posts. And of course, I don't think we have to be grammatically correct for thread posts, and I know you weren't implying that, either. I understood it was just a useful piece of information you were contributing.
Since you seem to be up on grammatical rules, I have a question I've been wondering about which you might be able to answer. Also FredCDobbs may be able to answer since he was a professional journalist. Normally short prepositions are supposed to be lowercase, although I know some places are now using the rules that all prepositions are lowercase. When I was in grade school, it was only prepositions of fewer than six letters.
My question is, is the preposition "with" in the title To Sir, With Love supposed to be capitalized? My instinct is to capitalize it, perhaps because it is coming after a comma. I often struggle with this when titling DVDs of movies I have recorded. Similarly, would a preposition after a colon be capitalized? I can't think of a real example right now, so I'll make up one: Hurricane: In the Eye of the Storm. Again, my instinct is to capitalize "in" even though it is a preposition, since it is following a colon.
The TCM online schedule tends to capitalize all prepositions, so I don't think it can be used as a guide. Unless there is an exception for movie titles that says all prepositions in movie titles should be capitalized? I haven't heard of such an exception, however.
I realize most people aren't interested in this but I'm seizing upon this rare opportunity to get this obscure question answered while grammar is being discussed.
Thanks,
Robbie
-
> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote}
> I also love THE BIG HEAT! Basically I'm a sucka for some good noir, dark, crime stuff!
As long as it's B/W and from the 30's-50's, I'm there! Double Indemnity is my favorite in the film noir/crime genre--has to be, for me, since Barbara Stanwyck is my favorite actress--but I love The Big Heat, too!
Robbie
-
I'm looking forward to this, too. I recently saw The Bear That Wasn't and The Dot and the Line again on the MGM show on Boomerang (weeknights at 8pm) and was reminded of how truly imaginative Chuck Jones was.
The Dot and the Line just aired last weekend as a matter of fact, on Boomerang.
Robbie
-
> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote}
> I also loved that segment!!! As much as I dug seeing Fonda and Stewart on film together, that segment was weaker than the preview of MY THREE SONS!
It was all fun though, and I'm glad TCM aired this movie!!! They seem to be trying to work premiere's in as much as possible lately and hats off to them for doing that!The comedic chemistry between MacMurray and Demarest was great. You're right, it's like a preview of My Three Sons...
-
I loved seeing future My Three Sons Stars Fred MacMurray and William Demarest together in tonight's showing of On Our Merry Way.
Plus the greats Paulette Goddard, Burgess Meredith, Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, and Dorothy Lamour.
And bandleader Harry James, to boot. What a rich cast.
Bob's Picks are always the best!
Robbie
-
> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}
> Robbie -
> Don't worry about that. I don't think there were any "state secrets" in my post - nor in the original discussion in Atlanta. She was intent on hearing my critique and responding to that. She wanted to understand my disappointment and make sure I understood the motivation for the change. Plus she actually seemed sincerely bothered that she had disappointed me with the new opening. How cool is that?
>
> That's why she is one (of many!) of my favorite new TCM Friends.
>
> Kyle In Hollywood
Kyle,
It's easy to see why this network is so great. Apparently it's not just Robert Osborne--the entire staff cares about the work they're doing. This passion and consideration for everything related to their work shows up in the quality of the presentation on the TCM screen in our homes everyday.
Thanks for sharing!
Robbie
Message was edited by: voranis to correct typo
-
> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}
> What I remember most from our conversation was her declaration that the decision to change the primetime opening was not taken lightly. To make a change to the "signature" intro that had been seen for fourteen years had to be handled with the utmost care.
I assumed that would be the case. This network has always been very thoughtful and careful with its changes. Which is why I was curious as to the reasons behind it.
>
> According to "Ms. C", they wanted to convey a sense of community among movie watchers (a congregation, if you will) and also create that anticipation associated with the start of a movie. Plus it was important to herald Robert Osborne as the "man of TCM" with his name featured prominently on the rooftop movie screen.
I do think it's great that Mr. Osborne's name is featured now. I watch TCM a lot just to see his commentary (and Mr. Mankiewicz's too). I could watch many of these films on DVD but it just wouldn't be the same. Actually, I wish Mr. Osborne's commentary could be released on DVD, too. He has a real warmth and affection for movies that makes his commentary particularly delightful to watch, more so than some other movie critics.
>
> As to the "freshening" aspect, a lot of the visuals on TCM have been "freshened" over the past year or so. Look at the method of presenting the trailers on the channel, for example, which borrows from the "31 Days Of Oscar" promos of the past two years. Or the "Word Of Mouth" intros. This piece was just one part of that process. And I can't say I blame them undertaking this renovation. 14 years is an eternity in television time. But they know that "change for change sake" is not enough of a reason to mess with things. It is motivated to make sure even these smaller parts of the TCM day don't get, for lack of a better word, stale.
Even the visuals that show the next three movies coming up changed last year. I actually was glad of that, because one of the old visuals had the movie names trailing away and decreasing in size in a slightly upward diagonal fashion that made the ending of the movie name hard to see on my small (27") TV. Now all the visuals show the movie titles in a horizontal, consistently sized font that is easy to read. I guess I am not against all change. :-)
>
> I don't think I have betrayed any confidences with what I have written about our conversation that night. I hope not as we have plans to get-together the next time she is in Los Angeles. I'd hate to have jeopardized our "date" as she is one of my favorite new TCM friends.
>
Whoa, I'm sorry if my question was inappropriate. I didn't mean to be digging for anything confidential. I didn't think their explanation for the change would be confidential--if it was, I apologize for asking. It's neat to hear things that you guys had an opportunity to discuss with the TCM staff that most of us will never have!
Thanks,
Robbie
-
> {quote:title=Jenetico wrote:}{quote}
> Mercedes McCambridge
>
> I became a fan of her acting, because of the superb job she did in Johnny Guitar. I was sorry to read how the end of her life was so tragic.
I remember the first time I saw McCambridge was as a kid watching her on the TV show Bewitched as the witch Carlotta, who banishes Darren into a mirror so Samantha can marry her son, a marriage agreement made by Endora and Carlotta when their children were very young. Interestingly, Carlotta was one of McCambridge's birth names.
There was a presence about her, the way she stole the scenes said here was someone larger than television. So I wasn't too surprised when I later learned of her rich film career and the strong roles she played.
-
> {quote:title=CelluloidKid wrote:}{quote}
> *VERY COOL TCM!! Thank you!! Fianlly a "RARE" _Joan_ film shown on TCM. Good job TCM. I love _Johnny Guitar_ ..Very strange western film. I own an OOP copy on VHS with./an introduction by Martin Scorsese!*
>
> Some film buffs & film historians see _Johnny Guitar_ (1954) as a film about the House Un-American Activities Committee, the fear of communists and the drive to have members of the Hollywood community name names.
>
> I love Joan...today is a good day!!! Kisses!
Amen...Joan is one of my favorites too and, as with Barbara Stanwyck, I enjoy seeing her in Westerns as well as dramas.
Robbie
-
Glad to see TCM is running Johnny Guitar which I used to be able to see only on the Westerns Channel. And The Tall T, too!
Robbie
-
> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}
>I must have had a ten minute "back and forth" about my disappointment over the new Primetime Opening with the Head of the Department responsible for it. Obviously, I didn't convince her to change it again but she was intent to hear what "Kyle In Hollywood" had to say because my opinion mattered. This happened more than once with others from other departments too.
Kyle,
I don't like the new primetime opening either. But I don't like change in general, which is why I am a fan of older movies and TV, I guess. I also really miss the morning opening with the cafe and the singing--what was it, "Look for the brighter side of life" or something like that? I used to know it by heart but it's been a year or so since they changed it and my memory is fading on it. I like the new afternoon opening OK as I didn't care for the old one too much. I also really like the late night opening and am worried they might change that one day too. And I thought I have noticed two almost identical late night openings, but one has a scene or two that the other doesn't ("the car headlights"?), and the music is just slightly different at one place in the middle and at the end. I have been trying to go back through my recordings to try to find the other one which isn't shown much anymore, but I haven't been able to find it, so now I'm wondering if I imagined it.
I thought I might be the only person who pays attention to things like the openings--when I point these changes out to my friends, they just roll their eyes and say they can't believe I notice such stuff. I'm glad to find out I'm not the only one who notices these things.
Anyway, my question is, when you talked with the Head of the Department, did she explain why they made the changes? Was it just because they thought a fresher look was needed?
And I'm curious as to what your disappointment was with the new opening. Mine is that it looks too modern. The old one seemed to have a more classic look to it. The new one seems to look too CGI for my taste, although maybe the old one was computer generated, too.
Congratulations to all of you on being selected for such a thrilling experience!
Robbie
Message was edited by: voranis
Message was edited by: voranis
-
> {quote:title=talkietime wrote:}{quote}
> Most of the digital broadcast channels are UHF.
>
> Rabbit ears antennas that have only the extending rods are VHF, only marginally effective for UHF reception. Some rabbit ears antennas also have a loop, rectangle or circle for UHF reception.
I'm sure the ones with UHF reception were what the sales persons were referring to. Perhaps I mistook "rabbit ear antenna" to be synonymous with "indoor antenna", which it sounds like they are not. At any rate, a sales person at my local Best Buy and a sales person at my local Radio Shack each told me they each were receiving all the digital broadcasts from all the local stations in our area with crystal clarity with the cheapest indoor antennas that their stores sold, and that buying the more expensive indoor antennas that their stores sold might be a waste of money. They also said customers had had varying success rates with different types of indoor antennas and some experimentation might be necessary, with the success rate depending on your location. At any rate, according to their personal experiences, it is possible to get excellent reception of the digital broadcasts with just a cheap indoor antenna if the location is right for it.
-
> {quote:title=cinemafan wrote:}{quote}
> Also, on topic - is there any use for rabbit ear antennas anymore? I still have a couple around.
Actually the sales persons I talked to at my local Best Buy and Radio Shack both said they personally have been able to pull in all the digital broadcasts in our area perfectly using a rabbit ear antenna. Which is why they weren't able to help me with my questions about line of sight, average pricing, and installers for outdoor antennas. They did tell me that there has been considerable variance in reception quality reported by their customers and a lot of it has to do with location.
I actually live closer to the broadcast towers than one of the sales personnel does, but I have not been able to get consistently good reception with the rabbit ear antenna and converter box the way he did. Which is why I was wondering if the fact that I practically live in a forest is why the rabbit ears aren't working too well for me, and whether installing an outdoor antenna would be any better, or would the trees be just as much a problem for a big outdoor antenna. I don't know how to determine this in advance. I sure don't want to pay to have the antenna installed first only to find out the reception isn't any better.
Message was edited by: voranis
-
> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}
> Sorry to hear that your local stations won't allow Directv to give you the Los Angelas and New York feed, many stations are very snobbish about that - I guess they fear the compitition. To me that is simply wrong and in some respects unconstitutional! How they can even do that is puzzling if not disturbing.
Yes, I missed last night's Eleventh Hour because of a basketball game. Our CBS affiliate is the worst about this. Maybe I need to live in a remote area like you (you said the nearest station was 60 miles away?) so I can qualify for the network feeds.
>
> The only 2 stations Directv won't allow me to have is PBS and CW. No loss though, I have 2 local PBS stations, the 2nd one is called KET.
I do have CW 9 (local) on both DirecTV and cable.
When I first got DirecTV, I did have access to the national PBS feed for a few years. It was great--I got to see a lot of programs that my local PBS station would not carry, such as Uncommon Knowledge. Then DirecTV added my local PBS station and the national PBS station was blocked. I haven't enjoyed the local station nearly as much as the national one. I don't think we even get to see all the American Masters shows because the local PBS station preempts them with local stuff I don't really care about.
DirecTV also used to have two other PBS channels I enjoyed--an educational channel, PBSYOU, and a kids channel, PBSKIDS. PBSKIDS was converted into something completely different, SPROUT. PBSYOU was discontinued because PBS said they couldn't afford the cost. Hmmm. Then suddenly my local PBS station was adding an education and kids channel as part of its digitial broadcast. Hmmm. Then in a special on the DTV transition, I see the manager of the local PBS station saying "satellite subscribers are really missing out. They should really check out all the digital channels we are carrying on digital cable." A PBS manager encouraging folks to drop satellite and switch to cable? Hmmm. A coworker of mine said, "What do you wanna bet if we examine the PBS station's contributors, we will find the local cable company is a big donor?" Then I find out the PBS station is using the local cable company's equipment and studios to transmit its digital channels. Hmmm...
>
> There is one unique thing about my local Channel 3 NBC station is that they have 2 SEPERATE channels - both are broadcasted from the same station. One is on Channel 3 and the other is on channel 4 but it is NOT called channel 4. The main channel 3 (WSAZ) is on channel 4 and the 2nd is called MyZ WSAZ which is on channel 3. Ever heard of such a setup before? Both tells the EXACT news!
I've heard of duplicates, though not that close together on the dial...
-
> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote}
> I myself, even though have cable, have installed amplified splitters which boost the signal provided. I personally did ALL my indoor cableing (told Suddenlink to only worry about the line from pole to side of house) and installed a 4 outlet Directv system thoughout my house. I used the low profile round dish with a dual LNA and connected it to a special RCA 4 output splitter. My installation is pernament!
I have a dual LNB with an RCA 4 output splitter for my DirecTV system as well. 4 receivers, each connected to 3 Pioneer HDD/DVD recorders.
Do you have separate cabling for your cable and DirecTV? My DirecTV installer used the existing coax cables running into my house to carry the DirecTV signal. I have regretted letting him do that ever since. Since I have eight coax cables that were installed by Time Warner Cable, I had to have a signal amplifier installed for that, but it interfered with the DirecTV signal, so the DirecTV installer disconnected it. Unfortunately this means my cable signal is not good, but I do all my recording from DirecTV anyway. I have been living with it this way for 8 years. I can see why you did the cabling yourself to make sure it was done right, but I am not up to doing it myself. I have been considering getting an electrician to come out and install separate cabling for the Time Warner Cable and DirecTV signals, but I know that will be expensive.
>
> This is why I am in no rush for HDTV - I expect whatever I do last me 20 - 30 years!
>
> My antenna information was past along by Channel 3's technical consultant so I only stated what he did about living in a hilly area. I am on Suddenlinks cable system and don't have to worry about buying a converter box. I have the best of both worlds, my local stations (the closest is 60 air miles distant) and the Los Angeles and New York ABC CBS NBC and FOX broadcast provided by Directv.
DirecTV was already carrying local channels in my area in 2000 so I was not allowed access to the Los Angeles and New York feeds. I really hate it because frequently our local stations pre-empt network programming for college basketball games and I cannot see the network programs.
> The way converter boxes are set up varies, some has a coaxial output, some with audio/video and some with combo outputs. I use the audio/video method as much as possible and use AV switch boxes to select devices. My remote has one button selection between Video1 Video2 and standard televison. Radio Shack has an AV selector switch that can be operated by remote control,
>
> I use a programable multiple device LEARNING remote control. It took time to program the individual keys for some devices but was worth it. My one remote controls the TV, Directv, DVD player, CD player, 2nd VCR, Radio Shack converter box for the 2nd VCR (to provide extra channels), antenna rotator (for 2 meter and tower cam), Home automation and my window air conditioner. Has enough unprogramed keys left for an AV selector switch. My 1st VCR has a too complex joggle and Navigation system to try to get a universal remote to function properly. My stereo is still the old fashoin 2 channel - I use headphones anyhow.
I use RCA AV selector switching boxes which can learn the signal used to select a device and associate it with a specific input. So when I press the button to select a Pioneer HDD/DVD unit, the RCA selector automatically switches to the appropriate input.
>
> Hmm I am watching the History Channel while typing this and they finally filmed Area 51 in Hi definition with a 1140mm telephoto lens at a distance of 22 miles. I'll sleep better tonight knowing that. (little fun
I thought you had standard def?
Robbie
Message was edited by: voranis
-
Hi,
I have a question about this and it sounds like there is a lot of expertise here in these message boards, so I'm hoping someone can help. The sales personnel at my local Radio Shack and Best Buy weren't really sure about it when I asked them.
I have DirecTV but no HDTV sets so I am not interested in upgrading to their HD receivers at this time. However, I am interested in getting set up with an antenna and converter box so I can receive the extra digital channels that are offered over the air by my local stations. I don't need to see them in digital, I would be happy seeing them in analog, so I would be OK with using a converter box to get access to them.
I have a heavily wooded lot. When I had DirecTV installed 8 years ago, they had trouble finding a clear line of sight to install the dish. (Dish Network came out and they could not find a clear line of sight at all for to pick up their satellite.) Eventually DirecTV did find one, and my reception has been fine. However, I am wondering if I will have problems with reception if I get a regular antenna installed so I can use the converter boxes. I had always thought that line of sight was not a factor with regular antennas the way it is with satellite, but recently some folks have indicated to me that it might be. Does anyone know how significant line of sight is with broadcast antennas? Also, with the prevalence of cable and satellite, I've heard it's hard to find someone to install antennas now, which can mean even if you do find someone, it might be very expensive. Anyone have any idea how hard it is to find an installer, and what the average cost is? I realize prices will vary depending on location but still knowing the prices in some areas might help me get a sense of the price range or ballpark figure...
Thanks,
Robbie
Message was edited by: voranis
-
> {quote:title=bOb39 wrote:}{quote}
> I was waiting a long time for this one. I hadn't seen it since AMC ran it over a dozen years ago.
> Now I'm looking forward to Sun. 2/15 for No Time For Love, another Fred MacMurray gem that has been dormant for too long. This time, with my favorite Fred Macmurray co-star, Claudette Colbert.
>
> I hope TCM will have the rights to run these films again. It'd be a shame to see them go back into obscurity.
I haven't seen that one, either; looking forward to seeing it.
That reminds me of another film starring MacMurray and Colbert that I used to love but haven't seen in a long time: The Egg and I. I wonder if TCM will ever show that one?
-
> {quote:title=vitaphony wrote:}{quote}
> i don't see what people are complaining about. TCM has much less repetition than any other movie channel. and the repeats of things everyone has already seen is mostly an issue in the primetime lineup, and throughout Oscar month. Solution: record all the movies airing in the late night and mornings, when TCM tends to run the more obscure stuff and B-movies, and you will never run out of "new" classics to watch.
That's something I've always wondered about. I like the old shorter black-and-white films from the early days, like the older Barbara Stanwyck and Bette Davis vehicles. Or, the football movies they showed last Friday. Except when they are doing a specific tribute to someone like Stanwyck or RKO, TCM tends to show these shorter B&W movies during the daytime when it is harder to see them. In the evenings they show all the longer color spectacles that I don't care as much for. Is this because the older B&W movies are considered B-movies, and TCM schedules them only during the daytime because these movies are considered less popular?
-
> {quote:title=ChipHeartsMovies wrote:}{quote}
> I grew up on the TV show *Dark Shadows* (the vampire soap opera with Barnabas Collins, my FAVORITE show when I was a kid), in which Joan starred. When I see her movies I identify her so strongly with that show that it's like seeing, say, Florence Henderson in a movie --- you just think *Brady Bunch* .
>
> Give Connie a try too --- *Our Betters, What Price Hollywood?, Merrily We Live, Topper* (of course) --- she's a load of fun.
>
> Interesting note, her last film role was in *Madame X* , one of Lana Turner's overwrought 60's excesses (that I love so much).
I grew up on Dark Shadows, too. I really liked seeing Joan Bennett in "There's Always Tomorrow" with Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck. I wish TCM would show that movie sometime.
-
> {quote:title=ziggyelman wrote:}{quote}
> How's that for a warning??? I mentioned it in the good older films coming up thread, and meant to start a tread the day before it aired...Oh well....It's a very cute comedy with Fred MacMurray, and Rosalind Russell, a Paramount film. If you miss it today, hopefully TCM will run it again in the next month or so.
Darn, I missed it. Just getting over a bad illness and haven't been able to check the schedules as much recently. This looks like a great movie; I love Rosalind Russell and Fred MacMurray. I would love to have seen it. It's not available on DVD and TCM will not be showing it in the next three months, according to the posted schedules. Which means they probably won't be showing it again for years, since they probably leased it for a one-shot showing for 31 Days of Oscar.
I recorded all the movies during the Rosalind Russell Star of the Month last July, but alas, this movie was apparently not among the ones they showed. Guess they couldn't lease all her movies for the Star of the Month tribute.
Sigh. :-(
Message was edited by: voranis
-
> {quote:title=patful wrote:}{quote}
> voranis, when you search the forums, you need to select "all" for the date range. This will give you all of tcmprogrammr's posts. I would post a link to my search, but the address is a mile long and would mess up this thread, and I would never hear the end of it. :-) You should end up with 188 hits. He has more posts than that, but some threads have multiples. Make a mental note of the date and time of each post, because the search will take you willy-nilly into a thread, usually not where the post actually is. Then you have to navigate around until you find it. Good luck. I would usually try to help but I'm just getting over the flu. Headache's big enough already.
Thanks for the help. First off, I was using the wrong tab (User tab). I can infer I was using the wrong tab since only the Forum tab has the Date Range field. The User tab search for TCMProgrammr did return a set of results, it just didn't return all of them and the link below the results that said it would show all the messages just took me back to the search page (User tab).
OK, so now I am using the Forum tab and have specified a date range of All, All Categories. Well, I didn't quite end up with 180 hits, but I did get more by specifying All for the date range.
Here's what I got:
Forums containing your results
Hot Topics (8)
General Discussions (140)
General Issues (2)
Search Results ? Messages: 150
Pages: 10 [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next ]
I have plenty of results to search through, but in the meantime, I did want to ask if I am still doing something wrong as I didn't get 188 hits.
Also, thanks for the heads-up about noting the date of the post, I had run into the nasty problem earlier of the fact that clicking on a search result does not take one to the exact post. You have to wade around to find it once inside the forum...
Thanks for the help, and I hope you are feeling better!
Message was edited by: voranis
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> You might trying searching TCMProgrammr's posts. I do know that he has posted in a variety of threads in both General Discussions and Hot Topics over the years. I don't think the general info you are looking for is contained in any one particular thread but is spread out in various threads where he addresses questions regarding the films they broadcast.
>
> I wish I could be of more help but I have trouble getting the search function to work properly most of the time.
I had already tried searching for his posts, it only gave me a small number of results, none of which seemed to be the ones I was looking for. I clicked on the "Search for all user messages" link below the results, which should have displayed all his posts. Instead, it took me back to the Forum Search page, with only one result displayed. At first I thought maybe I was not searching correctly but based on what you said I guess it's more of a problem with the search engine.
As long as it's B/W and from the 30's-50's, I'm there!
Tea for Two
in General Discussions
Posted
I missed this movie today. I was curious if anyone knows if this is the first time it has aired on TCM--a TCM premiere, as Robert Osborne sometimes calls them?
Thanks,
Robbie