Posted by guv on 09/21/85 11:59

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 19:22:10 +0100, AlanG <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:43:32 +0100, "Roberto Pirezzi"
><roberto_pirezzi@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"AlanG" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>news:2scgh25lip6btliunna1570c1n7gmqsd4j@4ax.com...
>>>>You pay indirectly to ITV and you have *absolutely* *no* *choice*
>>>>about paying for, no TV you don't pay for the BBC but you still pay
>>>>for ITV. Fact.
>>>
>>> Completely wrong.
>>> Someone pays for ITV.
>>> It isn't me unless I buy the poroduct advertised
>>
>>Wrong, regardless of whether you buy the "product" you will still end up
>>paying.
>
>No i wont
>>
>>Say a product in the Proctor and Gamble brand is advertised, you may not buy
>>that particular product, but you are likely to have purchased P&G products
>>previously...and may continue to do so.
>
>No I wont
>
>>It is perfectly conceivable that the
>>income from ALL of P&G's range funds their marketing department. As a
>>result, as a product end user, you pay. Fact.
>
>I don't.
>
>And more to the point they don't send some hired thug round to extort
>the money if I don't

Nor do the BBC. (Which I assume is your point?)

[Back to original message]