how to watch the Dem debate on ABC?

[doncoulter]

It doesn't have to be complicated. I'm watching the "debate" live on abcnews.go.com. No VPN necessary, no obscure website, no problems at all.

[jesm]

Great tip. KISS is always best.

[DonJuane]

It's not complicated other than lucking upon the happenstance that cnn streaming abc.go and other "must have a satellite account or US IP address to log in" were all kind enough to let down their firewalls during the debate. If you were either "lucky enough" or had "read the fine print" to learn that these fire walls had been or were going to be waived during the debate, then you came out fine. Otherwise there is no reason to say something is not complicated when it is, just because someone happens upon this bit of luck or advanced information. What I did was conducted extensive research solely for the benefit of this group to gain access to these TV offerings when the firewalls were up. There is no point or benefit to say the information I provided was too complicated or unneeded. If fact if people here would frame their information a little more on the kind-side rather than the implied "you dumb ass, this is how it should be done", then I believe more and more people would participate here. The overall 'snarky air" of this repository has existed quite long enough in my opinion and if we can't exist as a community to the point of building each other up rather than cutting each other down, then I think this repository should be set to rest. All that it takes to "be kind" is to perhaps explain things in a way such as "I just found out some great news that the firewalls are to be down for debate". No need to add in "what you are doing is too complicated to be needed", just explain another way without a "dig".

[doncoulter]

Wow, DonJuane. I posted twice on this thread, and I don't believe either of my posts can reasonably be called "snarky," as you put it. Nor did I imply, as you say, "You dumb ass, this is how it should be done." In fact, my posts weren't personally directed at you at all. My first post, which I made a couple of days before the so-called debates, simply stated that, historically, I had been able to watch them on the network websites and elsewhere, without need of a VPN or anything fancy. I thought that was useful information, which I did not just "happen upon" by "luck." My second post, which I made during last week's debate, stated that I was indeed watching it on the network website. Yes, I did say, "It doesn't have to be complicated." Do you really think that's "snarky"? Do you really think I was "cutting you down"? Do you really think my posts were a "dig" at you?

Well, yes, I suppose you do. A common denominator in many (not all) of your posts is that you take offense at things that were not intended to offend you or anyone else. Today you write, "The overall 'snarky air' of this repository has existed quite long enough in my opinion and if we can't exist as a community to the point of building each other up rather than cutting each other down, then I think this repository should be set to rest." You make it sound as though the expat "community" here is cutthroat, just lying in wait to attack you.

That's quite a lot to read into my two short, simple, and informational posts on this thread. If you really think I "implied" that you're a "dumb ass," perhaps a vacation is in order. If you really think the Gtolist has an "overall snarky air," I have to wonder why you keep coming back for more. It's not really about you at all.

[DonJuane]

Never said it was about me, I said that there was absolutely no-value add in anyone saying that some random contributor (which apparently no one could guess who the named contributor was) was describing things that were a waste of effort by being too complicated. It's about the quips and snips and overall condescending attitude exhibited by some here that I was pointing out, and that could have been anyone and I am surprised you took it as addressing you directly, as you have reacted by quite clearly addressing me directly by believing you were the recipient of general comments. And a vacation likely won't fix that or any other aspect of anyone's personality. Still I will agree and that is you can't change people by pointing out their shortcomings. It's all just an observation, actually and if I got you or anyone else here to thinking about it, then that's good. And as far as the "love it or leave it" aspect, really anyone could look at that and take the cue to follow through as well. Let those who wish to leave by all means, do so and let those who wish remain, please expect to engage in sometimes heated discussions which they may or may not enjoy. I happily accept what I receive here, but like you I don't always roll over and beg for another kick like a stray dog might do.

[doncoulter]

I never said (nor did anyone else) "that some random contributor . . . was describing things that were a waste of effort by being too complicated." Nor did I (or anyone else) say, "Love it or leave it." Some people (no one in particular, of course) like to put words into other people's mouths. It makes it easier to satisfy their sense of grievance, of victimhood, of being "kicked."

That's all I have to say. I cede the last word.

[DonJuane]

"That's all I have to say. I cede the last word." At last we agree :-)