Murdoch - The Sequel

[Mr Pee]

A gift-wrapped turd is still a turd.

Is there really any need for that sort of juvenile unpleasantness??

[anotherbob]

Is there really any need for that sort of juvenile unpleasantness??

Sir, you're making a scene.

(and BTW, if an expression is good enough for Chaucer, it's certainly good enough for this board.....
"By God,’ quod he, ‘for pleynly, at a word,
Thy drasty ryming is nat worth a tord;"
Canterbury Tales.)

[amateur51]

I really find the general negativity towards Sky very surprising. I must assume that it is something which is associated with the membership of this Forum.

Really Sherlock?! - quelle surprise

As for 'risk-free', examination of the early days of Sky will reveal what huge risks were taken and what enormous financial losses were made for many years. Someone showed vision, courage and imagination - and we have all been beneficiaries.

Have you been asleep for the past 30 years?

In the foreword of his book about his period as editor of The Times, Good Times, Bad Times [Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1983], Harold Evans writes at length about how Thatcher and Murdoch co-operated over Murdoch's papers' supporting her in the 1979 election in return for her making sure that his bid for The Times was spared a referral to the Monopolies Commission.

Does any of this sound familiar in relation to recent Murdoch newspaper support for Cameron in the May 2010 election and Cameron's attempts to offer a smooth passage to Murdoch's plans to buy a controlling share in BSkyB?

Murdoch and his media empire have been a malign influence on British political and social life for a very long time and some of us don't want to give a penny towards his profits as a matter of principle.

[Panjandrum]

I really find the general negativity towards Sky very surprising. I must assume that it is something which is associated with the membership of this Forum.

A vociferous minority who browbeat the silent majority I'm afraid.

That's one of the reasons why I proposed a "like/dislike" button for each post, so that those who do not wish to get embroiled in unpleasantness or be the recipient of tirades of abuse could make their opinions known safely. You can guess which members objected to this freedom of speech initiative, somewhat reminiscent of those trades union which blocked secret balloting.

[Panjandrum]

No shit, Sherlock!

Have you been asleep for the past 30 years?

What a deeply unpleasant and offensive post.

[Mr Pee]

What a deeply unpleasant and offensive post.

I don't know why the anti-Sky clique seem to feel the need to resort to such offensive nonsense. Perhaps it is because there's really no logic whatsoever to their argument.

[french frank]

I don't know why the anti-Sky clique seem to feel the need to resort to such offensive nonsense. Perhaps it is because there's really no logic whatsoever to their argument.

I think the arguments have been very plainly set out. If you still don't know what they are, perhaps you should reread some of the threads on the subject.

Would all members please keep to the subject and refrain from making attacks on each other. Thank you.

[Mr Pee]

I think the arguments have been very plainly set out. If you still don't know what they are, perhaps you should reread some of the threads on the subject.

Would all members please keep to the subject and refrain from making attacks on each other. Thank you.

I know what the arguments are, and I have read the threads on the subject. The reason I say they lack logic is because, in the majority of cases, they are based on nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction against anything linked to the Murdoch empire. I do not regard that as a valid argument. I have said before that if we all boycotted companies that are less than angelic in their conduct, our choices would be limited indeed.

[Flosshilde]

A vociferous minority who browbeat the silent majority I'm afraid.

Have you any proof that there is a 'silent majority'?

That's one of the reasons why I proposed a "like/dislike" button for each post, so that those who do not wish to get embroiled in unpleasantness or be the recipient of tirades of abuse could make their opinions known safely. You can guess which members objected to this freedom of speech initiative, somewhat reminiscent of those trades union which blocked secret balloting.

nI wouldn't object to such a thing, but you would have to explain how it is a 'freedom of speech' 'initiative', as not having it doesn't prevent anyone from expresing an opinion. Why are you afraid to put your name (which I assume is a pseudonym anyway) to your opinions?

[amateur51]

What a deeply unpleasant and offensive post.

This is choice, as you are one of the most unnecessarily rebarbative members Panyan!

Ooops soz, french frank - just seen your plea

[Mr Pee]

Ooops soz, french frank - just seen your plea

You saw it as you were in the process of replying to another? How on earth did you manage to do that?? And you were able to remark on the fact that you'd seen FF's plea, but you couldn't just cancel your post? Curioser and curioser.....

[amateur51]

You saw it as you were in the process of replying to another? How on earth did you manage to do that?? And you were able to remark on the fact that you'd seen FF's plea, but you couldn't just cancel your post? Curioser and curioser.....

There was a character (played by Leslie Dwyer) in a BBC Radio 2 soap called Waggoner's Walk many years ago whose catch-phrase, used in arguments with his wife, was :"Oh drop orf, Doris"

It just popped unbidden into my head

[Anna]

I do wish you boys would stop baiting each other. Boys! <whatever made me say that?> It's been a long time since you two have been fresh cheeked youths!

John Skelton tried to steer it back to original discussion, the funding, or not, as regards Sky and BBC and to leave aside feelings about the evil Murdoch empire and the quality of programmes.

[Flosshilde]

I hate to say this , but it was Mr P who first diverted us from the question of the BBC paying Murdoch - oops, BSkyB - to use the BSkyB platform, in post no. 4 on the original thread. (He was responding to an aside by Anna, who's post was about the scandal outlined by PT)

[Nick Armstrong]

Is there really any need for that sort of juvenile unpleasantness??

And yet you chose to draw attention to it by devoting an entire thread to it!

Perhaps pulling the chain discreetly might have been preferable to displaying said item on your doorstep?