In article <Tp5Dj.21859$mI6.13998@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Jimbo" <chris150@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> It seems like sooo many people look to the podcasts for some answers.
> What about the people who don't get the podcasts?
> I do know a few people who watch LOST but don't get podcasts, as a mater
of
> fact, one of them doesn't even use a computer or cell phone.
>
> My question is this . . .
> Do you think that someone who only watches LOST as a weekly show would
be
> able to keep up with it and not loose interest in it?
> I know that some of the people I know that only watch the TV show are
> starting to watch other shows now and are forgetting to watch LOST.
>
> Do you think that the producers are trying to capitalize on the idea of
a
> show that requires so much investment that the viewer will watch it
because
> of the time and energy invested?
>
> In Economics this way of thinking is called a "sunk cost" and to dwell
on it
> is a bad thing.
>
> If this is the case then "The Economist" may have a deeper meaning.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I like the show and have watched every one, even
read NG
> posts but, I just thought of this and was wondering if anyone else
thought
> this.
I think I understand more about what's going on because I read this
group. I might be confused if I just watched the show by itself. But I
have to think that the show's creators take into consideration that a
lot of folks would only have TV, so they have to write so that the
TV-only audience can follow and understand.
--
8^)~ Sue (remove the x to email)
~~~~
http://wacvet.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=wacvet
http://www.myspace.com/wacvet22
http://www.suzanne-eckhardt.com/
http://www.intergnat.com/maleba****ng/
http://www.intergnat.com/*****games/
|
