GA costly? Try TV...

[Dylan Smith]

I was reading an article complaining about Comcast service, linked from
Slashdot. The lady who was complaining in her blog revealed how much she
pays for TV... once you subtract her internet service, it's over $1500 a
year. $1500 a year for *TV*! No wonder no one can afford GA any more.
That's enough to pay for an annual on the ancient aircraft I own!

I'm absolutely staggered that anyone can even consider paying that much
for TV, but then again, I'm not everyone :-)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Tom Conner]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> I was reading an article complaining about Comcast service, linked from
> Slashdot. The lady who was complaining in her blog revealed how much she
> pays for TV... once you subtract her internet service, it's over $1500 a
> year. $1500 a year for *TV*! No wonder no one can afford GA any more.
> That's enough to pay for an annual on the ancient aircraft I own!
>
> I'm absolutely staggered that anyone can even consider paying that much
> for TV, but then again, I'm not everyone :-)
>

It isn't to hard to get a cable rate of over $100 a month. Of course, you
can also watch it 8 hours a day, or more. The cost per hour of TV is
probably less than the cost per hour of GA.

[[email protected]]

The fact that most kids now do watch it that much may mean their
parents are getting great value for their cable bill but I can't help
feeling that this isn't, net net, a 'good thing.'

>
> It isn't to hard to get a cable rate of over $100 a month. Of course, you
> can also watch it 8 hours a day, or more. The cost per hour of TV is
> probably less than the cost per hour of GA.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article t>,
"Tom Conner" > wrote:
> It isn't to hard to get a cable rate of over $100 a month. Of course, you
> can also watch it 8 hours a day, or more. The cost per hour of TV is
> probably less than the cost per hour of GA.

That assumes that there's always something worth watching on television.
Usually, there isn't.


JKG

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>I was reading an article complaining about Comcast service, linked from
>Slashdot. The lady who was complaining in her blog revealed how much she
>pays for TV... once you subtract her internet service, it's over $1500 a
>year. $1500 a year for *TV*! No wonder no one can afford GA any more.
>That's enough to pay for an annual on the ancient aircraft I own!
>
>I'm absolutely staggered that anyone can even consider paying that much
>for TV, but then again, I'm not everyone :-)
>
I'm not surprised. You don't have to pay that much for TV, but if you
want to receive every premium channel available, $1500/ yr. is quite doable.
I'm not sure what the lady would be complaining about, though. It's not like
anyone is forcing her to subscribe to all of those premium channels.

The amount of money you can squander on various services (TV, mobile phone,
etc...) is growing rapidly. I'm amazed at the amounts of money that my
friends tell me they spend on things like cell phone service. The base
prices don't sound too bad, but when you start adding in all of the extras
like messaging charges and mobile Internet access, the annual outlay starts
to look ridiculous.

$1500 /yr. is slightly more than I pay for all of my
telecommunications/entertainment services combined. That includes TV, home
phone, cell phone and high speed Internet.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200706/1

[Jay B]

On Jun 19, 3:57 pm, Some Other Guy > wrote:
> Then there are people for whom cost isn't much of an issue:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6768237.stm
>
> An unnamed buyer just ordered an Airbus A380 at the Paris air show today.
> For "personal use for him and his entourage".
>
> $300 million bucks.
>
> Some oil Sheik presumably, but I wonder if he's aware that there's
> not a lot of places that puppy can land.

Read the other day that someone has already put down $$$ for a private
B787 as well...

It's one thing to deal in "vapor airframes," but it's a whole
different world to be able to spend "vapor cash!"

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Mxsmanic]

Jay B writes:

> It's one thing to deal in "vapor airframes," but it's a whole
> different world to be able to spend "vapor cash!"

Buying an A380 may be pretty safe, assuming that payment is on delivery, given
the likely delivery dates.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay B writes:
>
>> It's one thing to deal in "vapor airframes," but it's a whole
>> different world to be able to spend "vapor cash!"
>
> Buying an A380 may be pretty safe, assuming that payment is on
> delivery, given the likely delivery dates.
>



Fjukkwit


Bertie

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:57:57 -0400, Some Other Guy
> wrote in
>:

>
>An unnamed buyer just ordered an Airbus A380 at the Paris air show today.
>For "personal use for him and his entourage".

Hey, it's tough for a sheik with a large harem out there. :-)

[Viperdoc]

Is this from personal experience buying your own fleet of simulated
aircraft?

No one gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts. Why don't
you develop a new interest like doll collecting or breast feeding and go
there?


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jay B writes:
>
>> It's one thing to deal in "vapor airframes," but it's a whole
>> different world to be able to spend "vapor cash!"
>
> Buying an A380 may be pretty safe, assuming that payment is on delivery,
> given
> the likely delivery dates.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Some Other Guy wrote:
>I wonder if he's aware that there's
> not a lot of places that puppy can land.

That's the first thing I thought of when I read of a private A380.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Is this from personal experience buying your own fleet of simulated
> aircraft?

Where instead of a date and serial number, a "approximate download time"
is provided? <G>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:
>
> That assumes that there's always something worth watching on television.
> Usually, there isn't.

I even have a TiVO, and there STILL isn't much programming that
interests me. I'm not a TV sports fan, so about half of the potential
is eliminated. News and weather are much better obtained on the web. I
don't like sitcoms or game shows, and I don't shop on my TV.

Come to think of it, if I wasn't married, I wouldn't need TV at all.
The same goes for a land line phone.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:73f2fde80f39c@uwe...
>>
> I'm not surprised. You don't have to pay that much for TV, but if you
> want to receive every premium channel available, $1500/ yr. is quite
> doable.
> I'm not sure what the lady would be complaining about, though. It's not
> like
> anyone is forcing her to subscribe to all of those premium channels.
>
> The amount of money you can squander on various services (TV, mobile
> phone,
> etc...) is growing rapidly. I'm amazed at the amounts of money that my
> friends tell me they spend on things like cell phone service. The base
> prices don't sound too bad, but when you start adding in all of the extras
> like messaging charges and mobile Internet access, the annual outlay
> starts
> to look ridiculous.
>
> $1500 /yr. is slightly more than I pay for all of my
> telecommunications/entertainment services combined. That includes TV,
> home
> phone, cell phone and high speed Internet.

Ah...the money people will spend to turn their brains into a scrambled mass
of jello!

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> No one gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.

Perhaps you do not, but others can speak for themselves.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> That's the first thing I thought of when I read of a private A380.

The objective is probably to land wherever the aircraft will be see by the
most people, and most airports in that category could handle an A380.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Noone gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.
>
> Perhaps you do not, but others can speak for themselves.
>

Noone gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> That's the first thing I thought of when I read of a private A380.
>
> The objective is probably to land wherever the aircraft will be see by
> the most people, and most airports in that category could handle an
> A380.
>

The category?


Bwahawhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhha!


Bertie

[El Maximo]

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>Viperdoc writes:
>>
>>> No one gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.
>>
>>Perhaps you do not, but others can speak for themselves.
>
> I'll give a ****.
> And if you post your mailing address, I'll send it to you.

Do a whois for atkielski.com

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
El > wrote:
> Do a whois for atkielski.com

He recently denied that was his site...

Andy

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> No one gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.
>
> Perhaps you do not, but others can speak for themselves.

Noone gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.

[El Maximo]

"Andy Hawkins" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> El > wrote:
>> Do a whois for atkielski.com
>
> He recently denied that was his site...
>
> Andy

I saw where he lied about ever having a blog, but I guess I missed where he
lied about who he wasn't. Until very recently, mxsmanic.com was registered
to Anthony Atkielski. Both atkielski.com and mxsmanic.com resolve to the
same IP address (193.252.54.223)

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

In article >,
El > wrote:
> I saw where he lied about ever having a blog, but I guess I missed where he
> lied about who he wasn't. Until very recently, mxsmanic.com was registered
> to Anthony Atkielski. Both atkielski.com and mxsmanic.com resolve to the
> same IP address (193.252.54.223)

I think it was in response to a post of mine. I posted a clip from
atkielski.com visitors book of someone asking where his blog went, and he
denied ever having a visitors book...

Andy

[Gatt]

"Some Other Guy" > wrote in message
...

> $300 million bucks.
>
> Some oil Sheik presumably, but I wonder if he's aware that there's
> not a lot of places that puppy can land.

Watch what happens when he tries to fly it to America. At least he won't
have to come to the States to learn how to fly it.

-c

[Barney Rubble]

I'll speak for me - I don't give a **** about your pontificating and
unfounded posts.
When will you get the message - you are not welcome here?

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> No one gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.
>
> Perhaps you do not, but others can speak for themselves.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> No one gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.
>
> Perhaps you do not, but others can speak for themselves.

I'm glad you asked moron.

I think you suck on all levels.

I think you set the high water make for "not gellin".

I think what you don't know could fill a set of encyclopedias.

I think if you were not mentally challenged, you would certainly learn to
STFU until you can learn to relate, to real people and the real world, on at
least a rudimentarily level.

I think I have NEVER seen you post anything of any VALUE to this group.

I think whatever education you demonstrate here, has been completely wasted
on an individual with zero capacity for objectivity.

I think no matter how hard you try to establish yourself as a voice of
authority here, you are completely unable to serve any more purpose than a
completely misguided troll.

And I also think, as long as there is even one person here that is naive
enough to post anything under your posts besides nonsense, we will all have
them to thank for keeping you here.

I recommend you go back to the breast feeding group. At least you have
proven you can suck.

I hope others will take time to VOTE as well.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:

> > No one gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.

> Perhaps you do not, but others can speak for themselves.

Arrogant, self-righteous, pontificating, arguementative, twit.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Viperdoc writes:
>>
>>> No one gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.
>>
>> Perhaps you do not, but others can speak for themselves.
>
> I'm glad you asked moron.
>
> I think ...

Come on Maxwell, tell us how you really feel. Keeping this stuff bottled up
is bad for you.

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Viperdoc writes:
>>>
>>>> No one gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you do not, but others can speak for themselves.
>>
>> I'm glad you asked moron.
>>
>> I think ...
>
> Come on Maxwell, tell us how you really feel. Keeping this stuff bottled
> up is bad for you.
>

What can I say, he finally asked a question that deserved a straight answer.
:)

[Jon]

On Jun 21, 4:15 pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Viperdoc writes:
> > > No one gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.
> > Perhaps you do not, but others can speak for themselves.

Perhaps?

Interesting attempt to soften the blow.

Putting letters next to each other to form words is fun, isn't it?

> Arrogant, self-righteous, pontificating, arguementative, twit.

Imagine what must be going on inside to actually have a desire to take
the above and turn it into a hobby....

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John Galban]

On Jun 20, 6:27 am, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:
>
> Ah...the money people will spend to turn their brains into a scrambled mass
> of jello!- Hide quoted text -
>

It just got worse. I was listening to a radio news report yesterday
about the new iPhone. Apparently, you can spend $200/mo. just on
connectivity and services.

The bar has been raised.

John Galban====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[B A R R Y]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:43:13 -0700, "Gatt" >
wrote:
>
>Watch what happens when he tries to fly it to America.

Can it land @ McCarran?

I hear sheiks like Vegas...

[Mxsmanic]

Barney Rubble writes:

> I'll speak for me - I don't give a **** about your pontificating and
> unfounded posts.
>
> When will you get the message - you are not welcome here?

When the newsgroup has an autocratic king, instead of a democratic
implementation of freedom of speech.

[JB]

On Jun 20, 2:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:
> > No one gives a **** about your pontificating and unfounded posts.
>
> Perhaps you do not, but others can speak for themselves.

Anthony,

I hereby state that I don't give a **** about your pontificating and
unfounded posts.

There are hundreds, or maybe thousands of people that "do their thing"
on the various flight sim newsgroups. You are the only one that has
the (teeny tiny) balls/kahunas/hutzpah to come here, continually
challenge real pilots with "knowledge" that has no basis in fact,
insult real pilots as a group, and generally waste bandwith with your
meaningless drivel.

Do yourself and all of us a big favor and please....go away.

<signed>

--Jeff

[El Maximo]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Barney Rubble writes:

>>
>> When will you get the message - you are not welcome here?
>
> When the newsgroup has an autocratic king, instead of a democratic
> implementation of freedom of speech.

Translation: I don't care about anyone else but myself. I'm having fun
****ing everyone off, so I'll continue as long as I please.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Perhaps you do not, but others can speak for themselves.
>

I can. He's right. I don't give a ****.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

El,

> Translation: I don't care about anyone else but myself. I'm having fun
> ****ing everyone off, so I'll continue as long as I please.
>

Yeah, but what else is new? We've established that with the idiot a few
days after he arrived here.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:33:18 -0400, Some Other Guy
> wrote:

>> B A R R Y writes:
>>
>>> That's the first thing I thought of when I read of a private A380.
>
>It just occurred to me that whoever this guy is, he most likely
>already has a smaller plane when he has to go slumming somewhere
>where an A380 won't fit.
>
>Like a 777 or something.

Maybe he can hang a Dassault Falcon or Gulfstream under the A380 wing,
X15 style! <G>