Still better with Sky HD ?

2 of 2

Nigel Goodwin

15-02-2009

Originally Posted by Tern:
“Not at all. It isn't mentioned because it's absolutely obvious. This is not a DSat newbie forum. It's for people who know what Freesat+ is otherwise they would not know to come here.”

I wasn't aware this was a closed forum?, with only experienced and competent members allowed to read it?.

I suggest you try reading the other threads in this forum, many of which you will find completely disprove your theory.

By assuming everyone knows everything you are giving completely misleading replies, only you know if you're doing this deliberately, or if it's just accidental on your part?.

Nothing is 'absolutely obvious', it may be to you, but not to the majority of readers. My sole concern is to try and correct such misleading posts, regardless of which 'side' they may be on.

jzee

15-02-2009

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“But which you were deliberately NOT mentioning, in an attempt to make Freesat look better than it is - a completely biassed and misleading opinion.”

Who was deliberately not mentioning what?!

Everyone knows Sky is a pay TV service that offers gazillions of channels, why do you not understand that some people simply don't want to pay a subscription or want such a large number of channels?

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“I'll repeat again, for the third time - if you DON'T want to pay anything, you want a PVR, and you're not bothered about HD - the the Freesat PVR is not only the BEST choice, it's the ONLY choice.”

Nigel, I am bothered about HD and I am quite content with the programming that we are getting at the moment. I realise that for non pay TV we are at the early adopter stage and the content on offer will continue to get better over time. All the main FTA channels will have to go HD eventually.

SSS09

15-02-2009

Minimum of Sky sub is 18months i think mate.

Nigel Goodwin

15-02-2009

Originally Posted by SSS09:
“Minimum of Sky sub is 18months i think mate.”

No, it's 12 months and always has been.

jzee/tern - looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, have a nice weekend both of you.

Tern

15-02-2009

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“I wasn't aware this was a closed forum?, with only experienced and competent members allowed to read it?.

I suggest you try reading the other threads in this forum, many of which you will find completely disprove your theory.

By assuming everyone knows everything you are giving completely misleading replies, only you know if you're doing this deliberately, or if it's just accidental on your part?.

Nothing is 'absolutely obvious', it may be to you, but not to the majority of readers. My sole concern is to try and correct such misleading posts, regardless of which 'side' they may be on.”

As I said before, the moderators cleary ageed that your post was at best worthless and at worst just puerile troublemaking.

Your opinion of other forum members: that they are so cretinously stupid that they need you to tell them, time after time, that they get more content with a subscription service than they do with a free one speaks volumes about your attitude.

derek500

15-02-2009

Originally Posted by Tern:
“Your opinion of other forum members: that they are so cretinously stupid that they need you to tell them, time after time, that they get more content with a subscription service than they do with a free one speaks volumes about your attitude.”

Precisely, which is why you can't really compare the two.

With Freesat you're buying a piece of hardware, whereas with Sky's £49 deal you're paying for the hardware and SD/HD content for a year.

2 of 2