SKY+

At 18:53:43 on 09/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
You didn't actually answer the question, though. Why do you need to
record digitally?

Why should I be excluded from recording digitally?

Why should I be excluded from broadband greater than 1Mb? That's the
way the cookie crumbles. Life ain't always fair. You still didn't
answer the question though.

Why, when it is government policy to transition to digital TV, should
25% of the population have paying Sky £10 a month as their only
option for digital recordings, when the other 75% do not? Do you
think that is fair?

Why do you choose a Sky+ if there is no benefit to it?

If I thought that, I wouldn't. If you think that, you shouldn't. It's
a choice.

"Alex" wrote in message
...

There's a difference between a luxury item and a necessity. TV itself
is a luxury item, let alone a recording device and especially one that
records digitally.

Today, TV is not considered a luxury item, nor is digital TV (and hence
Sky).
Digital TV subscriptions are part of calculation of the retail price index
which most certainly is not based on "luxury items", but on the average
consumer shopping basket.

Loz

"Alex" wrote in message
...
You didn't actually answer the question, though. Why do you need to
record digitally?

Why should I be excluded from recording digitally?

Why should I be excluded from broadband greater than 1Mb? That's the
way the cookie crumbles. Life ain't always fair. You still didn't
answer the question though.
Why do you choose a Sky+ if there is no benefit to it?

If I thought that, I wouldn't. If you think that, you shouldn't. It's
a choice.

So you agree there are benefits to Sky+.
And then question why I need to use it?
I am confused.
I want to record digitally for the same reasons you do I presume.

However, it seems that whilst digital recording is OK for you, I should be
grateful I have analog cake.

Loz

At 19:11:16 on 09/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
... You didn't actually answer
the question, though. Why do you need to record digitally?

Why should I be excluded from recording digitally?

Why should I be excluded from broadband greater than 1Mb? That's
the way the cookie crumbles. Life ain't always fair. You still
didn't answer the question though.
Why do you choose a Sky+ if there is no benefit to it?

If I thought that, I wouldn't. If you think that, you shouldn't.
It's a choice.

So you agree there are benefits to Sky+.

FFS, I've never argued otherwise.

And then question why I need to use it?

Yes. Why do you *need* to use it?

I am confused.

Really?

I want to record digitally for the same reasons you do I presume.

But why do you *need* to?

At 19:07:24 on 09/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

There's a difference between a luxury item and a necessity. TV
itself is a luxury item, let alone a recording device and
especially one that records digitally.

Today, TV is not considered a luxury item,

Are you arguing TV is a necessity?

"Alex" wrote in message
...
I want to record digitally for the same reasons you do I presume.
But why do you *need* to?

Why do I not need to?
None of us *need* it of course.

But need doesn't explain whether the Sky+ charge is fair or not, or
justifiable.
When 75% of the population can record digitally without paying a monthly
fee, don't you think it is unfair that 25% should have to pay one for
circumstances beyond their control?
I have asked this a couple of time.
You keep asking me to answer your question, so what about answering mine?


Loz

"Alex" wrote in message
...

"Alex" wrote in message
...
There's a difference between a luxury item and a necessity. TV
itself is a luxury item, let alone a recording device and
especially one that records digitally.

Today, TV is not considered a luxury item,

Are you arguing TV is a necessity?

No. I am arguing it isn't a luxury, which *you* claimed it is - right above.

Loz

At 19:28:31 on 09/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
I want to record digitally for the same reasons you do I presume.
But why do you need to?

Why do I not need to?
None of us need it of course.

There's your answer.

But need doesn't explain whether the Sky+ charge is fair or not, or
justifiable.

You've already admitted there's a benefit. If you feel that benefit
doesn't justify any fee you pay for it, then you should stop paying.

When 75% of the population can record digitally without
paying a monthly fee, don't you think it is unfair that 25% should
have to pay one for circumstances beyond their control?

They don't have to. They can record onto VHS, DVD or HDD.

I have asked
this a couple of time. You keep asking me to answer your question,
so what about answering mine?

I have done, repeatedly. You have not.

At 19:29:26 on 09/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

"Alex" wrote in message
...
There's a difference between a luxury item and a necessity. TV
itself is a luxury item, let alone a recording device and
especially one that records digitally.

Today, TV is not considered a luxury item,

Are you arguing TV is a necessity?

No. I am arguing it isn't a luxury,

Then it's a necessity.

which you claimed it is

Because it is. It is a refinement of living, not something necessary
for living.

Alex wrote:
At 19:29:26 on 09/09/2006, loz delighted uk.media.tv.sky by announcing:

"Alex" wrote in message
...

"Alex" wrote in message
...
There's a difference between a luxury item and a necessity. TV
itself is a luxury item, let alone a recording device and
especially one that records digitally.
Today, TV is not considered a luxury item,
Are you arguing TV is a necessity?
No. I am arguing it isn't a luxury,

Then it's a necessity.

which you claimed it is

Because it is. It is a refinement of living, not something necessary
for living.

This could go on for a while .....