On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 04:22:06PM -0700, Steven Alligood wrote: > Dr. Scott S. Jones wrote: >> TV is nice, it's soothing, and exciting, but it's really NOT essential for >> survival or to one's personal welfare. Those who HAVE to have their fix >> from >> TV should just pay for the privilege! >> > I only have an antenna. I got tired of paying out $50+ a month for mostly > garbage. > > We got rid of Cable > , and had a nice few months, until I realized that I didn't know what was > going on around the world and my own state. > > I finally paid out a one time $70 for a really good antenna, and now I have > the news and two shows a week that are worth watching.
I'm glad you want to know what's going on in the world, but the American media just aren't the way to do it. Let's see, I get the local paper just in case. I take the Economist, and visit the web sites of the Beeb, al Jazeera, The Times (the original one, in London), canoe.ca, and check a few others from time to time, like the Hindustan Times for some interesting reporting lately on the Bhutto assasination. You aren't going to get that with a $70 TV antenna. Oh, and the reg for IT news. > > And yes, I pay a lot for those few shows. It's called advertising. I just > don't pay twice now. Good way to put it. -- Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
