A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Dear Bill



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 16th 13, 05:43 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default Dear Bill

Ian Jackson wrote:

Personally, I don't mind Bill's occasional political
rant, as I suspect he often only means half of what he says.


It's amusing that Jeremy Clarkson used to absolutely infuriate me with
his Sunday Times column -- yet it was the first thing I turned to! It
was as if I wanted to be angered.

Bill
  #22  
Old November 16th 13, 05:51 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default Dear Bill

Robin wrote:
as I suspect he often only means
half of what he says.


Aha! So digital aerials *do* exist and are a "good thing"?



Yes they do. What's more everyone needs one. Some elderly people don't
seem to realise that using their new TV set on an old aerial will damage
the set and render the warranty invalid.

There is also a health issue. The elderly, in particular, should be
aware that a TV set used on an old aerial is straining itself, and will
send out dangerous rays. These rays are invisible and odourless but will
cause a stiffness in the joints. Anyone finding that their joints are
stiff after a long period of viewing should buy a new aerial immediately.

The rays also affect the ability of men in the seventies and eighties to
get an erection. If you are having increasing problems in this area you
need a new aerial!

Then there's the extra electricity that the set uses as it struggles to
work on an old aerial. This adds 20p an hour to the running costs. 20p?
That's sixteen shillings, gran! It's almost all your pension for a week!

Bill
  #23  
Old November 16th 13, 05:53 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default Dear Bill

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:

What's the point in having a special room called a toilet, when you
could **** in any room in the house?


So you can get a bit of peace and a look at the Daily Mail when the
grandchildren come round.

Bill
  #24  
Old November 16th 13, 06:34 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,253
Default Dear Bill

In article , Ian Jackson
wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
Brian Gaff wrote:
Hmm, and who is it that is forcing you to read them all? Brian


Good point Brian. Can I suggest that those who find my posts annoying
simply killfile me? Then shut the **** up.

I think the fear is that a lot of well-off-topic political posting tends
to attract passing ne'er-do-wells, who then take over the NG for
posting more political stuff and for their own personal bitching and
sniping (see 24hoursupport.helpdesk and, to a lesser extent,
uk.radio.amateur).


That's the problem. It can be like a sign which others takes "Trolls!
Welcome in!" Plus, of course, some more extreme people who decide the group
is one that may give them a a good forum.

However, provided there is enough reasonably on-topic stuff, this is
unlikely to happen. Personally, I don't mind Bill's occasional political
rant, as I suspect he often only means half of what he says.


I agree that he may not take it seriously. The problem is that it may still
end up damaging the usefulness of the group for *on* topic uses.

I don't killfile him because I don't take his rants seriously. I just find
them boring and a bit of an embarassment when I want to tell other people
that I hold his *on* topic views in good regard and to check his postings
out for more sensible and relevant info. I fear he just makes himself look
bad and regard that as a shame.

There are also political groups so why should people have to feel it is OK
for him to keep doing it here and be expected to step around it like Barry
McKenzie on his first visit to London? :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #25  
Old November 16th 13, 06:35 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,253
Default Dear Bill

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:


Personally, I don't mind Bill's occasional political rant, as I
suspect he often only means half of what he says.


It's amusing that Jeremy Clarkson used to absolutely infuriate me with
his Sunday Times column -- yet it was the first thing I turned to! It
was as if I wanted to be angered.


That's what the Daily Mail makes their income from.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #26  
Old November 16th 13, 06:45 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,210
Default Dear Bill

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:46:14 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Why not send them to the Daily Mail where there will find a vastly greater
appreciative audience?


If he bothers to give you an answer, I hope it equates to "no".

Rod.


My answer is absolutely not, never, no way, not at all, nix, no.

Bill


I think I understand.

Rod.
  #27  
Old November 16th 13, 07:57 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default Dear Bill

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:


Personally, I don't mind Bill's occasional political rant, as I
suspect he often only means half of what he says.


It's amusing that Jeremy Clarkson used to absolutely infuriate me with
his Sunday Times column -- yet it was the first thing I turned to! It
was as if I wanted to be angered.


That's what the Daily Mail makes their income from.


No I don't think so. I think the Mail writes for people who just want to
see their existing views expressed well, or at least better than they
themselves can express them. The Mirror is the same, but with an
opposite but stronger and more naked bias.

Such people want to stab the paper with their forefinger and say, "Look
'ere wot it says in the paper! Dead right that is!"

Bill
  #28  
Old November 16th 13, 07:59 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default Dear Bill

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 15:46:14 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Roderick Stewart wrote:

Why not send them to the Daily Mail where there will find a vastly greater
appreciative audience?
If he bothers to give you an answer, I hope it equates to "no".

Rod.

My answer is absolutely not, never, no way, not at all, nix, no.

Bill


I think I understand.

Rod.


Or for our American readers, 'A big negatory on that good buddy!'

Bill
  #29  
Old November 16th 13, 08:25 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,241
Default Dear Bill

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 17:53:46 +0000, Bill Wright
wrote:

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:

What's the point in having a special room called a toilet, when you
could **** in any room in the house?


So you can get a bit of peace and a look at the Daily Mail when the
grandchildren come round.

I thought you took the Mail in there for a more appropriate reason.
  #30  
Old November 16th 13, 08:56 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 212
Default Dear Bill

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 5:51:53 PM UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
Then there's the extra electricity that the set uses as it struggles to
work on an old aerial. This adds 20p an hour to the running costs. 20p?
That's sixteen shillings, gran! It's almost all your pension for a week!


20p is 5/- isn't it?

Owain

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2018 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.