What is this Sky TV hack?

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Could I respectfully ask that folk do not use dollar signs for the first
letter in in the word sky. I hear dolarky here.

But it is different from just saying Sky, it is derogatory and is intended
to convey they are just interested in making a lot of money like M$ instead
of MS for Microsoft.

Z

Zimmy wrote:
: But it is different from just saying Sky, it is derogatory and is intended
: to convey they are just interested in making a lot of money like M$ instead
: of MS for Microsoft.

It is infantile and never was funny! I immediately ignore any posts from
anyone using it!

In message , Zimmy
writes

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
.. .
Could I respectfully ask that folk do not use dollar signs for the
first letter in in the word sky. I hear dolarky here.

But it is different from just saying Sky, it is derogatory and is
intended to convey they are just interested in making a lot of money
like M$ instead of MS for Microsoft.

Z

Well, considering that for the last thirty years the public have voted
for rampant Capitalism (free market economy), it's not exactly a secret
is it?
--
Ian

"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Zimmy writes

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
. ..
Could I respectfully ask that folk do not use dollar signs for the first
letter in in the word sky. I hear dolarky here.

But it is different from just saying Sky, it is derogatory and is intended
to convey they are just interested in making a lot of money like M$
instead of MS for Microsoft.

Z

Well, considering that for the last thirty years the public have voted for
rampant Capitalism (free market economy), it's not exactly a secret is it?

My only point is that conveys a slightly different meaning. I don't care
whether using the statement is right or wrong.

Z

On 2009-10-07, Zimmy wrote:
"Ian" wrote in message
...
In message , Zimmy writes

But it is different from just saying Sky, it is derogatory and is intended
to convey they are just interested in making a lot of money like M$
instead of MS for Microsoft.

Well, considering that for the last thirty years the public have voted for
rampant Capitalism (free market economy), it's not exactly a secret is it?

My only point is that conveys a slightly different meaning. I don't care
whether using the statement is right or wrong.

I don't think Brian is saying it is right or wrong either, merely that
it's hard to understand through a screen reader...

--
David Taylor

Roger R wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

It says a lot about British justice that this bloke when to jail when
people commit violent assaut or burglary and get off with community
service. It's about time the safety of the individual and the property of
ordinary people were regarded as being as important as the fortunes of
great big firms like Sky.


Some believe sentences are about 'sending a message', others believe they
are for punishing wrong doers. Which is right?

As this case was about swindling a commercial organisation the purpose of
the sentence was to send a strong message to protect corporate wealth.

Protecting business is thought much more important than protecting
individuals because the whole economic success of the nation depends on
commercial activity whereas it doesn't matter to the nations economy if a
few ordinary people are wiped out. Putting business first is this
governments mantra.


Its the same short sighted attitude that led to the dilution of the Sale
of Goods act and that leads to poor quality products and services.

Gov't want to make it easy to run a business, give more credit etc.
when actually I believe the opposite is the right thing to do. What we
need is good products and services not lots a crap businesses. Making
it easy to run a business is what is making them weak, it needs to be
made harder, less credit and more regulation.

They forget that the businesses are there to support society not the
other way round. They have very simplistic view of things, easy
credit/less regulation = economic expansion.

--
Tony

In message , Tony
writes
Roger R wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

It says a lot about British justice that this bloke when to jail
when
people commit violent assaut or burglary and get off with community
service. It's about time the safety of the individual and the property of
ordinary people were regarded as being as important as the fortunes of
great big firms like Sky.

Some believe sentences are about 'sending a message', others believe
they
are for punishing wrong doers. Which is right?
As this case was about swindling a commercial organisation the
purpose of
the sentence was to send a strong message to protect corporate wealth.
Protecting business is thought much more important than protecting
individuals because the whole economic success of the nation depends on
commercial activity whereas it doesn't matter to the nations economy if a
few ordinary people are wiped out. Putting business first is this
governments mantra.


Its the same short sighted attitude that led to the dilution of the
Sale of Goods act and that leads to poor quality products and services.

Gov't want to make it easy to run a business, give more credit etc.
when actually I believe the opposite is the right thing to do. What we
need is good products and services not lots a crap businesses. Making
it easy to run a business is what is making them weak, it needs to be
made harder, less credit and more regulation.

They forget that the businesses are there to support society not the
other way round. They have very simplistic view of things, easy
credit/less regulation = economic expansion.

--
Tony

Unfortunately, since manufacturing diminished, there's been a surge in
business ownership.

We now have too many businesses competing for the public's expendable
income.

Too many snouts in the trough, many of them parasitic.

DTV is a good example.

--
Ian

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:08:15 +0100, Tony wrote:

They forget that the businesses are there to support society not the
other way round.

Not in capitalist societies.

The purpose of a business is to increase the wealth of those who have
invested capital in the business.

Anything else that the business produces is just a bi-product of that
fundamental purpose.

On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:23:32 -0700, 2Bdecided wrote:

"Mr Bennett said it was estimated that over six months Cairns had made
up to £5,000 in sales and subscriptions."

So less than the minimum wage then?

And how much is it costing the tax payers to keep Mr Cairs confined and
fed for the duration of his sentence.

Furthermore, is not his time within a correctional institution likely to
lead to him becoming even more associated with the business models of
the wrong type of people?

"Roger R" wrote in message
...

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

It says a lot about British justice that this bloke when to jail when
people commit violent assaut or burglary and get off with community
service. It's about time the safety of the individual and the property of
ordinary people were regarded as being as important as the fortunes of
great big firms like Sky.


Some believe sentences are about 'sending a message', others believe they
are for punishing wrong doers. Which is right?

As this case was about swindling a commercial organisation the purpose of
the sentence was to send a strong message to protect corporate wealth.

Protecting business is thought much more important than protecting
individuals because the whole economic success of the nation depends on
commercial activity whereas it doesn't matter to the nations economy if a
few ordinary people are wiped out. Putting business first is this
governments mantra.

Roger R


critcher said.........................
it's every governments mantra, no more so int his government as any other.