Absolutely. Sky customers who know how shady the company's practises are but don't care as long as they get what they want fall into their category.
A lot of Sky subscribers are just ignorant or ill educated to the company's corruption, perhaps through no fault of their own, or just because they can't be arsed to learn about what happens in the wider world. I think those people are generally known as Sun readers... :cool:
i don't go about telling everything that the company they use is run by the devil and the money they spend on it is insane etc etc - so yes you are very different.
you have an agenda (along with certain others).
me, i couldn't give a toss what other people do with their company and who they get their services from.
couldn't give a toss so much that you have to reply in minutes, and you cant say Sky are whiter than white in all the deals they have done. BT have more money to bid with so wish them luck and hope they get what they want.
Absolutely. Sky customers who know how shady the company's practises are but don't care as long as they get what they want fall into their category.
have you checked the background of every company you do business with? and the background of the major shareholders of every company you do business with?
which bank do you use?
do you check to see which companies they invest in to return your minimal interest rate?
do you have a pension? if you do then you are most likely already benefitting from BSkyB's profits.
what make of mobile phone do you have?
chances are it's all (or most of it) is made by Foxconn... now that company has some dodgy parts. conscience clear on that one?
A lot of Sky subscribers are just ignorant or ill educated to the company's corruption, perhaps through no fault of their own, or just because they can't be arsed to learn about what happens in the wider world. I think those people are generally known as Sun readers... :cool:
not ignorant or ill educated.
just nonchalant about the whole thing.
couldn't give a toss so much that you have to reply in minutes, and you cant say Sky are whiter than white in all the deals they have done. BT have more money to bid with so wish them luck and hope they get what they want.
i have never claimed they are whiter than white.
i couldn't care less if BT win all the sports rights, as i don't subscribe to sports anyway.
as i said, i'm not the one that seems to be on a crusade regarding how people choose to spend their money.
Absolutely. Sky customers who know how shady the company's practises are but don't care as long as they get what they want fall into their category.
A lot of Sky subscribers are just ignorant or ill educated to the company's corruption, perhaps through no fault of their own, or just because they can't be arsed to learn about what happens in the wider world. I think those people are generally known as Sun readers... :cool:
Or just don't care plenty of businesses probably have a shadier side to them if you delve into them.
I would welcome that. A healthy debate is the mark of an intelligent society
let me know when someone starts one with the intention of healthy debate.
all we get is certain people cleverly disguising (or sometimes not even being clever about it) trolling with the intention of getting a reaction.
anyone starting a thread in the sky sub-forum suggesting that people who spend their money on a sky sub are somehow delusional clearly only has one outcome in mind.
Absolutely. Sky customers who know how shady the company's practises are but don't care as long as they get what they want fall into their category.
A lot of Sky subscribers are just ignorant or ill educated to the company's corruption, perhaps through no fault of their own, or just because they can't be arsed to learn about what happens in the wider world. I think those people are generally known as Sun readers... :cool:
I happily sponsor evil Sky with my hard earned cash, just like I buy from Primark and exploit cheap foreign labour, shedloads of stuff from Amazon that's tax avoidance cheap and search through Google, who'll happily pass on my data for a quick buck.
Welcome to capitalism. Not an ounce of ignorance here mate.
have you checked the background of every company you do business with? and the background of the major shareholders of every company you do business with?
which bank do you use?
do you check to see which companies they invest in to return your minimal interest rate?
do you have a pension? if you do then you are most likely already benefitting from BSkyB's profits.
what make of mobile phone do you have?
chances are it's all (or most of it) is made by Foxconn... now that company has some dodgy parts. conscience clear on that one?
not ignorant or ill educated.
just nonchalant about the whole thing.
Nonchalance is worse than ignorance in a way. If nobody cared about right and wrong, the bad guys would always win (they do way too often as it is!)
let me know when someone starts one with the intention of healthy debate.
all we get is certain people cleverly disguising (or sometimes not even being clever about it) trolling with the intention of getting a reaction.
anyone starting a thread in the sky sub-forum suggesting that people who spend their money on a sky sub are somehow delusional clearly only has one outcome in mind.
Take that up with tvmadalan, he starts numerous threads that question the quality of TV providers, not just Sky.
I happily sponsor evil Sky with my hard earned cash, just like I buy from Primark and exploit cheap foreign labour, shedloads of stuff from Amazon that's tax avoidance cheap and search through Google, who'll happily pass on my data for a quick buck.
Welcome to capitalism. Not an ounce of ignorance here mate.
If you're trying to suggest that Amazon, Primarks alleged crimes are on a par with Sky/News International's, then yes there IS an ounce of ignorance here, mate. ;-)
But I am no different to you, I just prefer BT for the package they provide and you are free to chose your provider, and as Sky could not get near the broadband speed that BT can in my area the choice was easy.
My understanding was the line has a max speed regardless of which company you went with.
As far as I can see both companies offer speeds upto 76Mb.
My understanding was the line has a max speed regardless of which company you went with.
As far as I can see both companies offer speeds upto 76Mb.
It may be the case that there is no fibre available and this person is connected to an exchange where Sky LLU is not available, so BT can provide ADSL2+ and Sky is probably selling that awful 8Mbit connect product. Or there is FTTC, but Sky somewhat hides their 76Mbit product whereas BT openly publicises it
(or it's an area where BT FTTP is the only thing available, and Sky doesn't sell FTTP, whereas BT and a couple of other ISPs do)
It may be the case that there is no fibre available and this person is connected to an exchange where Sky LLU is not available, so BT can provide ADSL2+ and Sky is probably selling that awful 8Mbit connect product. Or there is FTTC, but Sky somewhat hides their 76Mbit product whereas BT openly publicises it
(or it's an area where BT FTTP is the only thing available, and Sky doesn't sell FTTP, whereas BT and a couple of other ISPs do)
They have FTTP (65-70Mb) going by a previous post.
Sky is available in the area as they have said they couldn't reach BT's speed, what products it offers I wouldn't know, but if they offer both FTTP products the speeds would be the same.
About my bank and mobile phone? Completely irrelevant to this discussion, but if you insist: Lloyds and Samsung.
Way to go, so I take it your Samsung runs Android owned by Google, a company that not only monitors how you behave and pass the information on, but also avoids paying its fair share of taxes...really you shouldn't get on the moral high ground when in reality you have low morals yourself, or you just choose the morals which fit your agenda as most do, when they start going on about morals.
If you're trying to suggest that Amazon, Primarks alleged crimes are on a par with Sky/News International's, then yes there IS an ounce of ignorance here, mate. ;-)
Yes, clearly I've had my head in the sand these past four years and cannot comprehend.
Fact is evil Rupert and News International don't have a controlling stake in Sky so you can't even link Sky to the Sun et al for the hacking scandal.
And interesting your high minded moral compass doesn't see child labour as too much of an issue? God forbid British folk pay over the odds for subscription TV though.
About my bank and mobile phone? Completely irrelevant to this discussion, but if you insist: Lloyds and Samsung.
it was relevant as you have a moral guidance to not use companies that have murky pasts. samsung use foxconn who have some pretty bad human rights issues... are you still happy to use a samsung phone?
Way to go, so I take it your Samsung runs Android owned by Google, a company that not only monitors how you behave and pass the information on, but also avoids paying its fair share of taxes...really you shouldn't get on the moral high ground when in reality you have low morals yourself, or you just choose the morals which fit your agenda as most do, when they start going on about morals.
it's called selective morals when it suits an agenda.
it's called selective morals when it suits an agenda.
And it keeps changing the poster first objected to the anti competitive behaviour and Sky having a monopoly on pay tv...the same as BT/Openreach really with regards to telecommunications, then when that was lost they had to go onto the phone hacking scandal.
then again they seem happy to fund other companies with low morals.
Way to go, so I take it your Samsung runs Android owned by Google, a company that not only monitors how you behave and pass the information on, but also avoids paying its fair share of taxes...really you shouldn't get on the moral high ground when in reality you have low morals yourself, or you just choose the morals which fit your agenda as most do, when they start going on about morals.
Hacking phones is worse than tax evasion, in my opinion. I don't like either, but there's certainly a lesser of two evils there.
Thanks for accusing me of having low morals, by the way. Isn't such a personal slur against board rules?
Yes, clearly I've had my head in the sand these past four years and cannot comprehend.
Fact is evil Rupert and News International don't have a controlling stake in Sky so you can't even link Sky to the Sun et al for the hacking scandal.
And interesting your high minded moral compass doesn't see child labour as too much of an issue? God forbid British folk pay over the odds for subscription TV though.
It wasn't for the want of trying. Murdoch would have had full control over Sky by now had his takeover bid not been thrown out in court. Some justice at last!
it was relevant as you have a moral guidance to not use companies that have murky pasts. samsung use foxconn who have some pretty bad human rights issues... are you still happy to use a samsung phone?
As you haven't gone into detail about Foxconn's human rights violations, yeah, I am.
And it keeps changing the poster first objected to the anti competitive behaviour and Sky having a monopoly on pay tv...the same as BT/Openreach really with regards to telecommunications, then when that was lost they had to go onto the phone hacking scandal.
then again they seem happy to fund other companies with low morals.
BT are just providing the infrastructure. As I've said before, there are dozens and dozens of competing telephony companies. There is only really four pay-TV providers. And there'd be three less than that if Sky had their way.
Hacking phones is worse than tax evasion, in my opinion. I don't like either, but there's certainly a lesser of two evils there.
Thanks for accusing me of having low morals, by the way. Isn't such a personal slur against board rules?
It wasn't for the want of trying. Murdoch would have had full control over Sky by now had his takeover bid not been thrown out in court. Some justice at last!
As you haven't gone into detail about Foxconn's human rights violations, yeah, I am.
BT are just providing the infrastructure. As I've said before, there are dozens and dozens of competing telephony companies. There is only really four pay-TV providers. And there'd be three less than that if Sky had their way.
Haven't had to accuse you of anything really, you have done that all by yourself, by going on about having morals when clearly yours are questionable too. So don't make yourself out to be better than anybody else.
Haven't had to accuse you of anything really, you have done that all by yourself, by going on about having morals when clearly yours are questionable too. So don't make yourself out to be better than anybody else.
I've not gone on about having morals, I've just given my view that Sky is a shady company and only Sky loyalists find it easy to defend them.
surely you're not ignorant to the facts? they have been widely reported.
or are you just nonchalant about the whole thing.
You're veering wildly off topic now. If you're struggling to defend your beloved Sky, that's OK. You were bound to run out of nice things to say about them sooner rather than later
isn't calling people ignorant also a personal slur?
That was a generalisation, I didn't call anybody personally ignorant.
I've not gone on about having morals, I've just given my view that Sky is a shady company and only Sky loyalists find it easy to defend them.
You're veering wildly off topic now. If you're struggling to defend your beloved Sky, that's OK. You were bound to run out of nice things to say about them sooner rather than later
That was a generalisation, I didn't call anybody personally ignorant.
Yet you said "Not having Sky is more of a moral issue for me than a financially motivated one."
That's true, but it doesn't automatically mean I've gone about moralising on every little thing.
so you agree then that it is selective morals when it suits an agenda?
you find it morally unacceptable that a shareholder in sky owned a company that employed someone that listened to peoples voicemails.
but you don't find it morally unacceptable that use a mobile phone that was manufactured and assembled by a company that has been wildly reported as having some pretty major human rights issues.
personally i don't care about either situations, but then i don't claim to have any moral guidance. i'm happy to watch TV from a provider and use a phone from a dodgy supplier.
see, you can't start spouting morals unless you are squeaky clean yourself.
some people are, and they are to be commended, but those who are selective about it when it suits them are on par with those with no morals at all (and i am in that latter bracket).
Comments
Absolutely. Sky customers who know how shady the company's practises are but don't care as long as they get what they want fall into their category.
A lot of Sky subscribers are just ignorant or ill educated to the company's corruption, perhaps through no fault of their own, or just because they can't be arsed to learn about what happens in the wider world. I think those people are generally known as Sun readers... :cool:
couldn't give a toss so much that you have to reply in minutes, and you cant say Sky are whiter than white in all the deals they have done. BT have more money to bid with so wish them luck and hope they get what they want.
have you checked the background of every company you do business with? and the background of the major shareholders of every company you do business with?
which bank do you use?
do you check to see which companies they invest in to return your minimal interest rate?
do you have a pension? if you do then you are most likely already benefitting from BSkyB's profits.
what make of mobile phone do you have?
chances are it's all (or most of it) is made by Foxconn... now that company has some dodgy parts. conscience clear on that one?
not ignorant or ill educated.
just nonchalant about the whole thing.
i have never claimed they are whiter than white.
i couldn't care less if BT win all the sports rights, as i don't subscribe to sports anyway.
as i said, i'm not the one that seems to be on a crusade regarding how people choose to spend their money.
Or just don't care
let me know when someone starts one with the intention of healthy debate.
all we get is certain people cleverly disguising (or sometimes not even being clever about it) trolling with the intention of getting a reaction.
anyone starting a thread in the sky sub-forum suggesting that people who spend their money on a sky sub are somehow delusional clearly only has one outcome in mind.
I happily sponsor evil Sky with my hard earned cash, just like I buy from Primark and exploit cheap foreign labour, shedloads of stuff from Amazon that's tax avoidance cheap and search through Google, who'll happily pass on my data for a quick buck.
Welcome to capitalism. Not an ounce of ignorance here mate.
Nonchalance is worse than ignorance in a way. If nobody cared about right and wrong, the bad guys would always win (they do way too often as it is!)
Undoubtedly. At least most businesses aren't so brazen in their terrible activities though.
And only one has been thoroughly exposed for phone-hacking a murdered girl's family too...
Take that up with tvmadalan, he starts numerous threads that question the quality of TV providers, not just Sky.
If you're trying to suggest that Amazon, Primarks alleged crimes are on a par with Sky/News International's, then yes there IS an ounce of ignorance here, mate. ;-)
you've ignored the questions i asked you.
About my bank and mobile phone? Completely irrelevant to this discussion, but if you insist: Lloyds and Samsung.
My understanding was the line has a max speed regardless of which company you went with.
As far as I can see both companies offer speeds upto 76Mb.
It may be the case that there is no fibre available and this person is connected to an exchange where Sky LLU is not available, so BT can provide ADSL2+ and Sky is probably selling that awful 8Mbit connect product. Or there is FTTC, but Sky somewhat hides their 76Mbit product whereas BT openly publicises it
(or it's an area where BT FTTP is the only thing available, and Sky doesn't sell FTTP, whereas BT and a couple of other ISPs do)
They have FTTP (65-70Mb) going by a previous post.
Sky is available in the area as they have said they couldn't reach BT's speed, what products it offers I wouldn't know, but if they offer both FTTP products the speeds would be the same.
Way to go, so I take it your Samsung runs Android owned by Google, a company that not only monitors how you behave and pass the information on, but also avoids paying its fair share of taxes...really you shouldn't get on the moral high ground when in reality you have low morals yourself, or you just choose the morals which fit your agenda as most do, when they start going on about morals.
Yes, clearly I've had my head in the sand these past four years and cannot comprehend.
Fact is evil Rupert and News International don't have a controlling stake in Sky so you can't even link Sky to the Sun et al for the hacking scandal.
And interesting your high minded moral compass doesn't see child labour as too much of an issue? God forbid British folk pay over the odds for subscription TV though.
it was relevant as you have a moral guidance to not use companies that have murky pasts. samsung use foxconn who have some pretty bad human rights issues... are you still happy to use a samsung phone?
it's called selective morals when it suits an agenda.
And it keeps changing the poster first objected to the anti competitive behaviour and Sky having a monopoly on pay tv...the same as BT/Openreach really with regards to telecommunications, then when that was lost they had to go onto the phone hacking scandal.
then again they seem happy to fund other companies with low morals.
Hacking phones is worse than tax evasion, in my opinion. I don't like either, but there's certainly a lesser of two evils there.
Thanks for accusing me of having low morals, by the way. Isn't such a personal slur against board rules?
It wasn't for the want of trying. Murdoch would have had full control over Sky by now had his takeover bid not been thrown out in court. Some justice at last!
As you haven't gone into detail about Foxconn's human rights violations, yeah, I am.
BT are just providing the infrastructure. As I've said before, there are dozens and dozens of competing telephony companies. There is only really four pay-TV providers. And there'd be three less than that if Sky had their way.
Haven't had to accuse you of anything really, you have done that all by yourself, by going on about having morals when clearly yours are questionable too. So don't make yourself out to be better than anybody else.
surely you're not ignorant to the facts? they have been widely reported.
or are you just nonchalant about the whole thing.
isn't calling people ignorant also a personal slur?
I've not gone on about having morals, I've just given my view that Sky is a shady company and only Sky loyalists find it easy to defend them.
You're veering wildly off topic now. If you're struggling to defend your beloved Sky, that's OK. You were bound to run out of nice things to say about them sooner rather than later
That was a generalisation, I didn't call anybody personally ignorant.
Yet you said "Not having Sky is more of a moral issue for me than a financially motivated one."
That's true, but it doesn't automatically mean I've gone about moralising on every little thing.
so you agree then that it is selective morals when it suits an agenda?
you find it morally unacceptable that a shareholder in sky owned a company that employed someone that listened to peoples voicemails.
but you don't find it morally unacceptable that use a mobile phone that was manufactured and assembled by a company that has been wildly reported as having some pretty major human rights issues.
personally i don't care about either situations, but then i don't claim to have any moral guidance. i'm happy to watch TV from a provider and use a phone from a dodgy supplier.
see, you can't start spouting morals unless you are squeaky clean yourself.
some people are, and they are to be commended, but those who are selective about it when it suits them are on par with those with no morals at all (and i am in that latter bracket).