Taccy No Sky News???

J G Miller wrote:

On Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011 at 18:35:04h +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

it's one of the drawbacks of newsgroups that people fail to
answer the technical question but instead use the topic to promote their
political views.

Which only highlights the point of the need for something like a
uk.broadcasting.politics newsgroup?

I doubt people would shunt all the politics there without fail, so the
group wouldn't serve your purpose.

would the regular posters on here consider
participating in a web forum

Web forum? spit! no thanks, I used to use Digital Spy, haven't posted
for ages, and berely bother reading it now, besides I can't be doing
with the multiple logins and lack of usability. There's one other
specific forum I use (non TV/broadcast related).

Okay so I know it is heretical to suggest such a thing on a Usenet
newsgroup ...

Correct.

On Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011 at 21:14:08h +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Web forum? spit! no thanks, I used to use Digital Spy

Please note I was not talking about something like that, but
a forum managed by appointed volunteers from this group.

besides I can't be doing with the multiple logins

If you only use one other web forum, why are you complaining
about multiple logins?

and lack of usability

What lack of usability?

J G Miller wrote:

appointed volunteers

Sounds dangerously close to being moderated, who chooses them?

If you only use one other web forum, why are you complaining
about multiple logins?

I don't want to use more forums, becaue of the hassle of having to
create more logins.

What lack of usability?

often no keyboard shortcuts

linear rather than tree threading

having to use their web interface, rather than my choice of reader

tediously slow

artificially limited number of items per page, so they can get more
advert impressions

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:05:55 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Sounds dangerously close to being moderated, who chooses them?

Do you have a problem with moderation?

I don't want to use more forums, becaue of the hassle of having to
create more logins.

Yes that is such a big deal is it not.

often no keyboard shortcuts

True.

linear rather than tree threading

Depends on the type of forum software, but in most common forum
presentations they are linear by time alone.

having to use their web interface, rather than my choice of reader

But your choice of web browser.

tediously slow

Not necessarily.

artificially limited number of items per page, so they can get more
advert impressions

Presumably you only see one posting at a time in your newsreader though.

Thanks for taking the trouble to present your comments.

J G Miller wrote:

Do you have a problem with moderation?

In general yes, though I grudgingly accept it may be necessary in a
small number of groups. Usenet may well be approaching the equivalent
of late-middle age, but I doubt it would have made it into its teens if
it had all been moderated ...

J G Miller wrote:

One advantage of moving to a web forum is being able to include images

I've always thought it ludicrously old fashioned that we can't include
graphs, animated dancing pigs, and audio in these messages. People just
don't seem to understand the value of animated dancing pigs and loud
noises.

My own messages would be much enhanced if I could include a small
picture of myself.

Bill

Andy Burns wrote:

Okay so I know it is heretical to suggest such a thing on a Usenet
newsgroup ...

Correct.

History has shown that heretics are often right.

Bill

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
One advantage of moving to a web forum is being able to include images

I've always thought it ludicrously old fashioned that we can't include
graphs, animated dancing pigs, and audio in these messages. People just
don't seem to understand the value of animated dancing pigs and loud
noises.

It's possible to include dancing pigs in a newsgroup posting, but not
everybody will see them, so it's not very practical for you if your aim is
to use the medium to say something that you want people to know.
Broadcasters can't just change the technical parameters of what they
broadcast on the assumption that everybody will rush out and buy new
receiving equipment overnight, and it's much the same here. Broadcast
something that nobody can receive and you're wasting your time. I
particularly object to those usenet adverts that include lots of HTML code
and say "If you can't see this properly you need to upgrade your
newsreader", as if I was under some obligation to check what they want to
sell me.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:22:47 +0100
Zimmy wrote:

On 23/08/2011 09:56, Rex J Atkins AMIBE wrote:
I came back from hospital, (were I retuned all the TVs there) only
to find my 2 TVs I Sony and 1 Westinghouse cannot display Sky
news..........

Tried all the good methods but no sky news...

Thats the only news I watch

http://news.sky.com/home/sky-live-tv

Z

"Sorry, you need Windows to view live streaming of Sky News"

Bummer if you won't pay Microsoft.

R.

On Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 at 04:08:59h +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

History has shown that heretics are often right.

You have to burn 'em, to test 'em, though.

Tasteless T-shirts available in your size --

http://www.amazon.co.UK/gp/product/B...CH3N54JSP79A8?