Further correspondence from Channel 4 CEO

"MC" wrote in message


I do not disapprove of anyone having their say. Thats exactly what right we
have as British citizens and that is my point. "No Logo" is fighting for
what he believes in. You, too, have your right to make a counter argument
against him. However, I feel you do not counter argue with relevant points.
You seem just to ridicule him for complaining in the first place. I hope
you do not intend to continue your counter arguments with "bad arguments"
you so accuse No Logo of. If you do not have a counter argument just leave
him to get on with it.

Been there, done that (search for my posts in Google), and he doesn't
listen, even when his arguments defy logic.



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

nwsy regurgitated eggs and wrote in -
berlin.de:

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the page this link
points to?

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel now. How pathetic.

--
Pile of pants.

nwsy regurgitated eggs and wrote in -
berlin.de:

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the page this link
points to?

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel now. How pathetic.

--
Pile of pants.

Sie wrote:
nwsy regurgitated eggs and wrote in
- berlin.de:

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the page
this link points to?

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel now. How pathetic.

Not really. They're all moaning like mad about ever-present logos they don't
like, but it's ok when they've chosen to use one. Hypocrisy y'see.

Sie wrote:
nwsy regurgitated eggs and wrote in
- berlin.de:

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to have your website logo on the page
this link points to?

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel now. How pathetic.

Not really. They're all moaning like mad about ever-present logos they don't
like, but it's ok when they've chosen to use one. Hypocrisy y'see.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:22:44 +0000 (UTC), "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

The next question is why is OFCOM - the converged super regulator -
denying responsibility for CMA issues? I have it in writing that OFCOM
will not investiagte CMA 1990 Section 1 matters, since the CMA 1990
Section 1 is not specifically included in the Communications Act 2003.

OFCOM is the communications regulator. The Computer Misuse Act is a
legal act for which the appropriate legal authorities (e.g. the
police) are responsible.

Finally, I look forward to the statement from Channel 4, which they have
not yet made, where they specifically state that "they will download
code onto viewers boxes with or without permission".

You miss the point. They are not downloading anything. YOU are
downloading the code when YOU tune into the broadcast where that code
is transmitted.

It would be like you telling the BBC that you forbid them from
'downloading' any Britney Spears music to your DAB radio. You're
tuning into a broadcast - you can't prohibit that broadcast from being
made. You CAN choose not to tune into it.

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:22:44 +0000 (UTC), "Heracles Pollux"
wrote:

The next question is why is OFCOM - the converged super regulator -
denying responsibility for CMA issues? I have it in writing that OFCOM
will not investiagte CMA 1990 Section 1 matters, since the CMA 1990
Section 1 is not specifically included in the Communications Act 2003.

OFCOM is the communications regulator. The Computer Misuse Act is a
legal act for which the appropriate legal authorities (e.g. the
police) are responsible.

Finally, I look forward to the statement from Channel 4, which they have
not yet made, where they specifically state that "they will download
code onto viewers boxes with or without permission".

You miss the point. They are not downloading anything. YOU are
downloading the code when YOU tune into the broadcast where that code
is transmitted.

It would be like you telling the BBC that you forbid them from
'downloading' any Britney Spears music to your DAB radio. You're
tuning into a broadcast - you can't prohibit that broadcast from being
made. You CAN choose not to tune into it.

On 06 Apr 2004 01:52:28 GMT, lid (Bill
Godfrey) wrote:

These logos on his website do not go over the top of actual content, nor do
they hang around once you scroll down the page.

Really? I just read one of the forum pages mentioned in a link a few
messages back, and not one but TWO large popup windows appeared over
the content I was attempting to read, one scrolling no less than 58
news stories, and another one telling me about other posts in the
forum.

On 06 Apr 2004 01:52:28 GMT, lid (Bill
Godfrey) wrote:

These logos on his website do not go over the top of actual content, nor do
they hang around once you scroll down the page.

Really? I just read one of the forum pages mentioned in a link a few
messages back, and not one but TWO large popup windows appeared over
the content I was attempting to read, one scrolling no less than 58
news stories, and another one telling me about other posts in the
forum.

Ant wrote:
On 06 Apr 2004 01:52:28 GMT, lid (Bill
Godfrey) wrote:

These logos on his website do not go over the top of actual content,
nor do they hang around once you scroll down the page.

Really? I just read one of the forum pages mentioned in a link a few
messages back, and not one but TWO large popup windows appeared over
the content I was attempting to read, one scrolling no less than 58
news stories, and another one telling me about other posts in the
forum.

Evil things popup windows. See what I miss by using a popup blocker?!

We want answers Pollux.