[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]]

On Wednesday 16 March 2016 00:42:48 Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 3/15/2016 11:45 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 10:35:12 Richard Owlett wrote:
> >> On 3/15/2016 3:57 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>> The BBC isn't going to take a blind bit of notice if Brian and I don't
> >>> watch Happy Valley.  It really isn't going to care.  It has its licence
> >>> money.
> >>>
> >>> Even Channel 4, which relies on advertising for its revenue, is totally
> >>> indifferent to the fact that Linux users can't watch it on a computer.
> >>> Well, Brian probably can.   But he hasn't let the rest of us into the
> >>> secret. [snip]
> >>
> >> Have any that think flash is inferior actually written a polite
> >> letter {preferably the snail mail variety] to a senior executive
> >> (President, CEO, COO, etc) of the content provider?
> >
> > And in the context of my posting "the content provider" would be?
> >
> > Do you really think that no-one, out of 60,000,000 potential users, a few
> > of whom use Linux, has thought of asking???  But tell me who you think
> > the content provider is, and I'll try again.  I admittedly used
> > electronic means. The BBC has improved things.  At least we can now get
> > it.  (As opposed to not getting it at all.)
> >
> > Lisi
> For an explicit response to your question, before you clicked on
> a link, whose logo was most prominent? They have likely paid cold
> hard cash to someone. I doubt they would appreciate paying
> someone to trash their reputation.

In the context of what I originally said this makes absolutely no sense at 
all.  Sorry.  That was why I asked what you meant.  You simply didn't read 
the thread.

And what worked 50 years ago wouldn't work now anyway.


Reply to: