+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Night Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Babestation (/forumdisplay.php?fid=99)
+---- Forum: BABESTATION TV (/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+---- Thread: Babestation : Freeview vs Sky (/showthread.php?tid=13807)
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - Donald Trump's "Hair" - 14-11-2009 18:42
(14-11-2009 18:35 )vila Wrote: Wtf does that have to do with it?
Ok so here's the situation:
I have money - Check
I would like digital tv - Check
I should research and see what option's are available to me - Check
Fuck that, pass the Argos value set top box - Fail
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - Sm© - 14-11-2009 18:44
I only have Freeview, do you ever hear me moaning?
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - vila - 14-11-2009 18:54
(14-11-2009 18:42 )Donald Trumps "Hair Wrote:(14-11-2009 18:35 )vila Wrote: Wtf does that have to do with it?
Ok so here's the situation:
I have money - Check
I would like digital tv - Check
I should research and see what option's are available to me - Check
Fuck that, pass the Argos value set top box - Fail
Yet another 'straw man'!I repeat, with slightly more detail as you appear to have forgotten the subject under discussion in this exchange: what does this have to do with whether or not the Sky organisation is leaning on Cellcast?
Besides, what you postulate is only one of a large number of possible situations. In any case, some people make their choice of platform before finding out about babe channels, and I repeat for the umpteenth time: for various reasons, NOT EVERYONE CAN INSTALL SKY.
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - TheWatcher - 14-11-2009 18:58
(14-11-2009 16:54 )Donald Trumps "Hair Wrote: I find it very difficult to believe that Sky have any sort of deal with Cellcast, but hey if you can provide me proof then i will take it all back. Until then it's all he said, she said conspiracy garbage.
Of course Cellcast have a deal with Sky.
They pay Sky to transmit their program.
Do you think Sky do it for nothing?
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - Donald Trump's "Hair" - 14-11-2009 19:01
(14-11-2009 18:54 )vila Wrote: I repeat, with slightly more detail as you appear to have forgotten the subject under discussion in this exchange: what does this have to do with whether or not the Sky organisation is leaning on Cellcast?
If you read my previous posts you would see what i think of Sky leaning on Cellcast.
Oh one more thing, how does repeating something add more detail?
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - Donald Trump's "Hair" - 14-11-2009 19:06
(14-11-2009 18:58 )TheWatcher Wrote:(14-11-2009 16:54 )Donald Trumps "Hair Wrote: I find it very difficult to believe that Sky have any sort of deal with Cellcast, but hey if you can provide me proof then i will take it all back. Until then it's all he said, she said conspiracy garbage.
Of course Cellcast have a deal with Sky.
They pay Sky to transmit their program.
Do you think Sky do it for nothing?
That's not what i meant. I meant that i find it difficult to believe that someone representing the Murdoch family said to Cellcast:
"Hey you know a good way to screw over the freeview mob, tone down the content when your broadcasting on that platform. Yeah, i realize people watching on Sky will be affected but bollocks to them. Let's keep this between us, capiche?"
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - vila - 14-11-2009 19:14
(14-11-2009 19:01 )Donald Trumps "Hair Wrote: If you read my previous posts you would see what i think of Sky leaning on Cellcast.
True, but that doesn't detract from the fact that your subsequent posts although purporting to be on the same subject in fact had nothing to do with it.
(14-11-2009 19:01 )Donald Trumps "Hair Wrote: Oh one more thing, how does repeating something add more detail?
I think the second of these quotes has slightly more detail than the first:
Quote:Wtf does that have to do with it?
Quote:what does this have to do with whether or not the Sky organisation is leaning on Cellcast?
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - Donald Trump's "Hair" - 14-11-2009 19:35
(14-11-2009 19:14 )vila Wrote: I think the second of these quotes has slightly more detail than the first:
Quote:Wtf does that have to do with it?
Quote:what does this have to do with whether or not the Sky organisation is leaning on Cellcast?
The reason i never posted the full part of the first quote was it contained you claiming i'm some sort of straw man?
What's that about?
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - vila - 14-11-2009 19:46
(14-11-2009 19:35 )Donald Trumps "Hair Wrote: The reason i never posted the full part of the first quote was it contained you claiming i'm some sort of straw man?
What's that about?
Now what are you on about???
My quote IS the FULL quote. I didn't repeat anything about your 'straw man' arguments (Google it).
As you seem to be just arguing for its own sake instead of taking part in a sensible debate I don't intend to respond any further. End of.
RE: Freeview vs Sky moaning thread - Gamehead - 14-11-2009 22:14
Oh........ my............god.
Is this still going on?
[moves soap box]
"Is this mic on? Ok, i'll begin."
For Christs sake Sky are NOT 'leaning' on anyone to control content... you've been watching too much 24 my friend. There is no conspiracy against anybody.
As i have said before, quite a while ago during the Party Girls era. If you go onto a 'new platform' it is a new marketplace. In this case Freeview and as a new marketplace, with a substantial amount of new viewers who are not accustomed to seeing the sort of thing that these shows, well show. They do not have the history of BS on SKY and might be truly shocked and/or offended by what they see.
People do not have SKY for a number of reasons, one of the main ones being money. I don't have SKY anymore because £50 a month for the pretty basic package gets you repeats and pretty much sod all else with regards to decent programmes considering the large number of channels. The other reasons Vila has mentioned.
Any 'new business' entering a marketplace with any aspect of it being 'sensitive' to the local/national populace has to be careful. Considering the sizable investment these companies make in distributing their products care and consideration for the bigger picture is paramount for it to be a success. Try setting up a western restaurant in the Gaza strip and watch how frickin' careful you are about selling bacon sandwiches.
It may seem like a weird analogy but people, especially in this country, with the 'old school' prim and proper types. Would write and complain immediately if they could. Look what the tabloids did to the Johnathon Ross and Russell Brand 'incident'. Nobody complained until they felt they could when the sodding papers reported it! That just goes to show how fickle and sheep-like a lot of sad people are out there. Sure what was done wasn't in great taste but it's a matter of perspective and or context, without either anything can be construed as 'wrong'. If you listened to the whole show i'm sure it would have been very funny and more importantly, appropriately contextual.
Similarly, if you're watching Countdown reruns ora detective thriller and spill tea on the remote and find youself on channel 94 at 10:03 you might be a bit taken aback.
So seriously guys, like i've said before give it time for FV to acclimatise to these shows. You might think it's been long enough (for you) and harp on about "Party Girls being on FV already and look where that went" (they only had a short license remember, they might as well have pushed it for those last few months!). I've heard the arguments, you've had them before. Let's leave the people who run the shows to do just that and trust that they know more about the industry than we do. I mean I don't work in TV, do you? What the F*** does anybody on here really know then? When they feel they can equal the output i'm sure they will, i mean 'Hello?' Then they would only make more money, so i think you'll find that would be in a business' best interests.
Right, i'm going back to gaming.