On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Phil Bridges <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gravityhammer@gmail.com">gravityhammer@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Steve Hodge <<a href="mailto:stevehodge@gmail.com">stevehodge@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">> But that's beside the point. It is not difficult to handle overruns with<br>
> scheduled recordings (in fact I seem to remember some talk of a script to<br>
> automatically handle sports overruns). You may prefer to use Live TV for<br>
> sports, that's fine. But you're not going to convince people who don't use<br>
> Live TV that your way is the best way, including the devs.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>If it's beside the point, why mention it? I'm not trying to "convince<br>
people who don't use Live TV that [my] way is the best way"; on the<br>
contrary, I'm trying to keep people from knocking LiveTV (and the<br>
people who are using it or trying to use it) nearly every time<br>
somebody asks a question about it.<br>
<div></div></blockquote><div><br>A question is only going to be answered three ways:<br>1. "Yes, there's a solution, here it is."<br>2. "Have you considered not using Live TV since it doesn't do what you want?" Which is an answer you don't like.<br>
3. "Fix it yourself." Which is also an answer that is often not received well.<br><br>So what exactly do you want us to say if there is no solution?<br><br>Regards,<br>Steve<br></div></div><br>