Slightly off-topic, but kind of not at the same time, as "Doctor
Who" is currently streaming on Disney+...
Disney disclosed an estimated 157 million global monthly active
streaming users on its ad-supported plans, including 112 million
domestically (Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+). This is the first time
Disney has disclosed numbers tied to their advertising plans in
this format. In Q3, Disney said that 37% of Disney+ subscribers
in the US were on its ad-supported plan, and 60% of all new
subscribers were choosing the AVOD (Advertising-based Video on
Demand) plan.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/08/disney-monthly-active-users-ad-supported-content.html
If there's one thing I hate... it's adverts!
Slightly off-topic, but kind of not at the same time, as "Doctor
Who" is currently streaming on Disney+...
Disney disclosed an estimated 157 million global monthly active
streaming users on its ad-supported plans, including 112 million
domestically (Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+). This is the first time
Disney has disclosed numbers tied to their advertising plans in
this format. In Q3, Disney said that 37% of Disney+ subscribers
in the US were on its ad-supported plan, and 60% of all new
subscribers were choosing the AVOD (Advertising-based Video on
Demand) plan.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/08/disney-monthly-active-users-ad-supported-content.html
If there's one thing I hate... it's adverts!
On 09/01/2025 21:21, Blueshirt wrote:
Slightly off-topic, but kind of not at the same time, as "Doctor
Who" is currently streaming on Disney+...
Disney disclosed an estimated 157 million global monthly active
streaming users on its ad-supported plans, including 112 million
domestically (Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+). This is the first time
Disney has disclosed numbers tied to their advertising plans in
this format. In Q3, Disney said that 37% of Disney+ subscribers
in the US were on its ad-supported plan, and 60% of all new
subscribers were choosing the AVOD (Advertising-based Video on
Demand) plan.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/08/disney-monthly-active-users-ad-supported-content.html
If there's one thing I hate... it's adverts!
Adverts and lies. Both amount to the same thing.
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every month. It's the
same people counted multiple times every time they watch the same show
again or watch a different show just like it is with YouTube. Lets
divide this figure by 1000 to get something that resembles the number of >unique viewers per show more closely. About 157 thousand individuals on >average watch each show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't even
get 20,000 per episode even during the same period, 10 times less than
The Acolyte as Doomcock reported.
How many actual paying subscribers do they really have, ones who are
still paying every month, not just past subscribers held on their
records? Probably only 15 million.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every month.
It's the same people counted multiple times every time they
watch the same show again or watch a different show just like
it is with YouTube. Lets divide this figure by 1000 to get
something that resembles the number of unique viewers per show
more closely. About 157 thousand individuals on average watch
each show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't even get
20,000 per episode even during the same period, 10 times less
than The Acolyte as Doomcock reported.
How many actual paying subscribers do they really have, ones
who are still paying every month, not just past subscribers
held on their records? Probably only 15 million.
The True Doctor wrote:
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every month.
It's the same people counted multiple times every time they
watch the same show again or watch a different show just like
it is with YouTube. Lets divide this figure by 1000 to get
something that resembles the number of unique viewers per show
more closely. About 157 thousand individuals on average watch
each show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't even get
20,000 per episode even during the same period, 10 times less
than The Acolyte as Doomcock reported.
I'm not sure I'd put Doomcock as a source above proper business
journalists and industry specialists. (CNBC are a major business
news outlet.) Clearly with big corporations like Disney, there
will always be a bit of spin - and maybe even propaganda -
whenever they release PR stuff like that, but I wouldn't think
they'd tell outright lies.
I wonder how many people that pay for the advert-tier plans on
the various Disney streaming services use ad-blockers and are
only using the advert plans because they are cheaper, and
they're gonna block most of the ads anyway?! So there are always
nuances even if Disney's numbers are correct.
I certainly don't believe that people pay for the adverts tiers
on Disney+, ESPN+ or Hulu because they actually want to watch
adverts!
How many actual paying subscribers do they really have, ones
who are still paying every month, not just past subscribers
held on their records? Probably only 15 million.
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so not
necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per quarter. So
if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then un-subscribed, I
would be classed as a paying subscriber for that "quarter" -
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I was only
a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where the special offers
play their part! We had one here recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a
month, for three months. Boom! You're now part of the quarterly
subscriber figures!)
In article <xn0p0n60l8il4cx008@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
How many actual paying subscribers do they really have, ones
who are still paying every month, not just past subscribers
held on their records? Probably only 15 million.
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so
not necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per
quarter. So if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then
un-subscribed, I would be classed as a paying subscriber for
that "quarter" - and included in that quarter's figures -
even though I was only a subscriber for a part of it.
(That's where the special offers play their part! We had one
here recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a month, for three months.
Boom! You're now part of the quarterly subscriber figures!)
More reason why to avoid streming services.
The True Doctor wrote:
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every month.
It's the same people counted multiple times every time they
watch the same show again or watch a different show just like
it is with YouTube. Lets divide this figure by 1000 to get
something that resembles the number of unique viewers per show
more closely. About 157 thousand individuals on average watch
each show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't even get
20,000 per episode even during the same period, 10 times less
than The Acolyte as Doomcock reported.
I'm not sure I'd put Doomcock as a source above proper business
journalists and industry specialists. (CNBC are a major business
news outlet.) Clearly with big corporations like Disney, there
will always be a bit of spin - and maybe even propaganda -
whenever they release PR stuff like that, but I wouldn't think
they'd tell outright lies.
I wonder how many people that pay for the advert-tier plans on
the various Disney streaming services use ad-blockers and are
only using the advert plans because they are cheaper, and
they're gonna block most of the ads anyway?! So there are always
nuances even if Disney's numbers are correct.
I certainly don't believe that people pay for the adverts tiers
on Disney+, ESPN+ or Hulu because they actually want to watch
adverts!
How many actual paying subscribers do they really have, ones
who are still paying every month, not just past subscribers
held on their records? Probably only 15 million.
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so not
necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per quarter. So
if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then un-subscribed, I
would be classed as a paying subscriber for that "quarter" -
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I was only
a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where the special offers
play their part! We had one here recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a
month, for three months. Boom! You're now part of the quarterly
subscriber figures!)
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p0n60l8il4cx008@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
How many actual paying subscribers do they really have, ones
who are still paying every month, not just past subscribers
held on their records? Probably only 15 million.
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so
not necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per
quarter. So if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then
un-subscribed, I would be classed as a paying subscriber for
that "quarter" - and included in that quarter's figures -
even though I was only a subscriber for a part of it.
(That's where the special offers play their part! We had one
here recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a month, for three months.
Boom! You're now part of the quarterly subscriber figures!)
More reason why to avoid streming services.
It gets harder and harder to avoid them... and for the younger
generation they won't know any better.
I don't see the streaming services going away anytime soon... I
do think there will be less of them in time though, as nobody
can pay monthly fees for all of them. So the strong will survive
and the weak will perish... or as is most likely, the ones that
don't make much money will be taken over by the ones that do!
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
Made up and which bares no resemblance to the real figures of
people who watched each episode all the way through which only
amounts to about 200.
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so
not necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per
quarter. So if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then
un-subscribed, I would be classed as a paying subscriber for
that "quarter" -
You be classed as a subscribed unless you totally deleted your
account not just cancelled your subscription.
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I was
only a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where the
special offers play their part! We had one here recently,
Disney+ for €1.99 a month, for three months. Boom! You're
now part of the quarterly subscriber figures!)
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's all a
scam. If they don't provide everyone with the raw data so it
can be annualized properly take everything to be a scam. Look
at the Nvidia and AMD graphics card scam going on at CES even
right now where Nvidia is claiming a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast
as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES
between two genuine ones!
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every month.
It's the same people counted multiple times every time they
watch the same show again or watch a different show just like
it is with YouTube. Lets divide this figure by 1000 to get
something that resembles the number of unique viewers per show
more closely. About 157 thousand individuals on average watch
each show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't even get
20,000 per episode even during the same period, 10 times less
than The Acolyte as Doomcock reported.
I'm not sure I'd put Doomcock as a source above proper business
journalists and industry specialists. (CNBC are a major business
Thes so called journalists and specialists are not different and no more
well informed that Doomcock. Most of the stuff they report is completely
made up by unnamed sources.
news outlet.) Clearly with big corporations like Disney, there
CNBC are FAKE NEWS.
will always be a bit of spin - and maybe even propaganda -
whenever they release PR stuff like that, but I wouldn't think
they'd tell outright lies.
Yes they would and have. They tell them about Donald Trump every day.
I wonder how many people that pay for the advert-tier plans on
the various Disney streaming services use ad-blockers and are
only using the advert plans because they are cheaper, and
they're gonna block most of the ads anyway?! So there are always
nuances even if Disney's numbers are correct.
Advertising and video on demand are contradictions in terms. There
shouldn't be a single advert on streaming services and I'm sick and
tired of being advertised women’s sanitary products.
I certainly don't believe that people pay for the adverts tiers
on Disney+, ESPN+ or Hulu because they actually want to watch
adverts!
How many actual paying subscribers do they really have, ones
who are still paying every month, not just past subscribers
held on their records? Probably only 15 million.
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
Made up and which bares no resemblance to the real figures of people who >watched each episode all the way through which only amounts to about 200.
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so not
necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per quarter. So
if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then un-subscribed, I
would be classed as a paying subscriber for that "quarter" -
You be classed as a subscribed unless you totally deleted your account
not just cancelled your subscription.
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I was only
a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where the special offers
play their part! We had one here recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a
month, for three months. Boom! You're now part of the quarterly
subscriber figures!)
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's all a scam. If
they don't provide everyone with the raw data so it can be annualized >properly take everything to be a scam. Look at the Nvidia and AMD
graphics card scam going on at CES even right now where Nvidia is
claiming a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE >INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES between two genuine ones!
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
The True Doctor wrote:
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
Made up and which bares no resemblance to the real figures of
people who watched each episode all the way through which only
amounts to about 200.
Subscriber figures have no relation to people watching something
all the way through... I assume that term means people paying
for a subscription. Once you have paid for the service I wouldn't
think they'd care how long you watched something for... just
keep that Direct Debit coming in!
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so
not necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per
quarter. So if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then
un-subscribed, I would be classed as a paying subscriber for
that "quarter" -
You be classed as a subscribed unless you totally deleted your
account not just cancelled your subscription.
If you're not subscribed then you can't be called a subscriber.
I'm not saying the streaming services don't do that, as I don't
know. But it wouldn't make any sense or be legally accurate.
Plus, their figures would never go down, and Disney have often
said their subscription numbers declined in Q1 or Q3 etc... Much
more easier to give people special offers that span "quarters"
and get you subscribed, or re-subscribed. Then you can
legitimately be classed as a subscriber for those quarters, even
though you might have only paid a few quid and then
un-subscribed.
This is basically the gist of what I read a while ago anyway.
It's not so much lies, more a case of manipulation.
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I was
only a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where the
special offers play their part! We had one here recently,
Disney+ for €1.99 a month, for three months. Boom! You're
now part of the quarterly subscriber figures!)
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's all a
scam. If they don't provide everyone with the raw data so it
can be annualized properly take everything to be a scam. Look
at the Nvidia and AMD graphics card scam going on at CES even
right now where Nvidia is claiming a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast
as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES
between two genuine ones!
Most things are a scam or PR spin these days, but I still don't
think the likes of Disney, Netflix and Amazon just pluck random
figures out of the air for their subscriber figures. They might
like to spin them in a positive way but they have to be based on
something. You couldn't say you had one million subscribers and
then have no income from those services in your accounts at the
end of the year!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
Made up and which bares no resemblance to the real figures of
people who watched each episode all the way through which only
amounts to about 200.
Subscriber figures have no relation to people watching something
all the way through... I assume that term means people paying
for a subscription. Once you have paid for the service I wouldn't
think they'd care how long you watched something for... just
keep that Direct Debit coming in!
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so
not necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per
quarter. So if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then
un-subscribed, I would be classed as a paying subscriber for
that "quarter" -
You be classed as a subscribed unless you totally deleted your
account not just cancelled your subscription.
If you're not subscribed then you can't be called a subscriber.
I'm not saying the streaming services don't do that, as I don't
know. But it wouldn't make any sense or be legally accurate.
Plus, their figures would never go down, and Disney have often
said their subscription numbers declined in Q1 or Q3 etc... Much
more easier to give people special offers that span "quarters"
and get you subscribed, or re-subscribed. Then you can
legitimately be classed as a subscriber for those quarters, even
though you might have only paid a few quid and then
un-subscribed.
This is basically the gist of what I read a while ago anyway.
It's not so much lies, more a case of manipulation.
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I was
only a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where the
special offers play their part! We had one here recently,
Disney+ for €1.99 a month, for three months. Boom! You're
now part of the quarterly subscriber figures!)
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's all a
scam. If they don't provide everyone with the raw data so it
can be annualized properly take everything to be a scam. Look
at the Nvidia and AMD graphics card scam going on at CES even
right now where Nvidia is claiming a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast
as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES
between two genuine ones!
Most things are a scam or PR spin these days, but I still don't
think the likes of Disney, Netflix and Amazon just pluck random
figures out of the air for their subscriber figures. They might
like to spin them in a positive way but they have to be based on
something. You couldn't say you had one million subscribers and
then have no income from those services in your accounts at the
end of the year!
In article <vls4sa$86ua$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every month.
It's the same people counted multiple times every time they
watch the same show again or watch a different show just like
it is with YouTube. Lets divide this figure by 1000 to get
something that resembles the number of unique viewers per show
more closely. About 157 thousand individuals on average watch
each show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't even get
20,000 per episode even during the same period, 10 times less
than The Acolyte as Doomcock reported.
I'm not sure I'd put Doomcock as a source above proper business
journalists and industry specialists. (CNBC are a major business
Thes so called journalists and specialists are not different and no more
well informed that Doomcock. Most of the stuff they report is completely
made up by unnamed sources.
news outlet.) Clearly with big corporations like Disney, there
CNBC are FAKE NEWS.
will always be a bit of spin - and maybe even propaganda -
whenever they release PR stuff like that, but I wouldn't think
they'd tell outright lies.
Yes they would and have. They tell them about Donald Trump every day.
I wonder how many people that pay for the advert-tier plans on
the various Disney streaming services use ad-blockers and are
only using the advert plans because they are cheaper, and
they're gonna block most of the ads anyway?! So there are always
nuances even if Disney's numbers are correct.
Advertising and video on demand are contradictions in terms. There
shouldn't be a single advert on streaming services and I'm sick and
tired of being advertised women’s sanitary products.
I certainly don't believe that people pay for the adverts tiers
on Disney+, ESPN+ or Hulu because they actually want to watch
adverts!
How many actual paying subscribers do they really have, ones
who are still paying every month, not just past subscribers
held on their records? Probably only 15 million.
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
Made up and which bares no resemblance to the real figures of people who
watched each episode all the way through which only amounts to about 200.
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so not
necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per quarter. So
if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then un-subscribed, I
would be classed as a paying subscriber for that "quarter" -
You be classed as a subscribed unless you totally deleted your account
not just cancelled your subscription.
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I was only
a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where the special offers
play their part! We had one here recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a
month, for three months. Boom! You're now part of the quarterly
subscriber figures!)
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's all a scam. If
they don't provide everyone with the raw data so it can be annualized
properly take everything to be a scam. Look at the Nvidia and AMD
graphics card scam going on at CES even right now where Nvidia is
claiming a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE
INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES between two genuine ones!
The are 4 Doctors in the Brain of Morbius.
On 10/01/2025 22:42, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
Made up and which bares no resemblance to the real figures of
people who watched each episode all the way through which only
amounts to about 200.
Subscriber figures have no relation to people watching something
all the way through... I assume that term means people paying
for a subscription. Once you have paid for the service I wouldn't
think they'd care how long you watched something for... just
keep that Direct Debit coming in!
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so
not necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per
quarter. So if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then
un-subscribed, I would be classed as a paying subscriber for
that "quarter" -
You be classed as a subscribed unless you totally deleted your
account not just cancelled your subscription.
If you're not subscribed then you can't be called a subscriber.
Just having an account with them means they can call you a subscriber
even if you are not paying them anything or even watching anything.
They're nothing more than a pack of deceiving liars.
I'm not saying the streaming services don't do that, as I don't
know. But it wouldn't make any sense or be legally accurate.
If you need to subscribe to obtain their service, notifications, or show
your support then you are a subscriber.
Look at the button on YouTube which says subscribe. You don't pay
anything to any of these channels you subscribe to unless you become a >Member.
Plus, their figures would never go down, and Disney have often
said their subscription numbers declined in Q1 or Q3 etc... Much
Those are because people have deleted their accounts. They still count
you as a subscriber if your account is still extant.
more easier to give people special offers that span "quarters"
and get you subscribed, or re-subscribed. Then you can
legitimately be classed as a subscriber for those quarters, even
though you might have only paid a few quid and then
un-subscribed.
See YouTube.
This is basically the gist of what I read a while ago anyway.
It's not so much lies, more a case of manipulation.
So you've never used YouTube.
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I was
only a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where the
special offers play their part! We had one here recently,
Disney+ for €1.99 a month, for three months. Boom! You're
now part of the quarterly subscriber figures!)
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's all a
scam. If they don't provide everyone with the raw data so it
can be annualized properly take everything to be a scam. Look
at the Nvidia and AMD graphics card scam going on at CES even
right now where Nvidia is claiming a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast
as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES
between two genuine ones!
Most things are a scam or PR spin these days, but I still don't
think the likes of Disney, Netflix and Amazon just pluck random
figures out of the air for their subscriber figures. They might
Well they do. They're psychopathic liars.
like to spin them in a positive way but they have to be based on
something. You couldn't say you had one million subscribers and
then have no income from those services in your accounts at the
end of the year!
Except they don't publish their accounts. How much has Disney made from >actual paying subscribers? They've never given a figure.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
On 11/01/2025 01:17, The Doctor wrote:
In article <vls4sa$86ua$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every month.
It's the same people counted multiple times every time they
watch the same show again or watch a different show just like
it is with YouTube. Lets divide this figure by 1000 to get
something that resembles the number of unique viewers per show
more closely. About 157 thousand individuals on average watch
each show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't even get
20,000 per episode even during the same period, 10 times less
than The Acolyte as Doomcock reported.
I'm not sure I'd put Doomcock as a source above proper business
journalists and industry specialists. (CNBC are a major business
Thes so called journalists and specialists are not different and no more >>> well informed that Doomcock. Most of the stuff they report is completely >>> made up by unnamed sources.
news outlet.) Clearly with big corporations like Disney, there
CNBC are FAKE NEWS.
will always be a bit of spin - and maybe even propaganda -
whenever they release PR stuff like that, but I wouldn't think
they'd tell outright lies.
Yes they would and have. They tell them about Donald Trump every day.
I wonder how many people that pay for the advert-tier plans on
the various Disney streaming services use ad-blockers and are
only using the advert plans because they are cheaper, and
they're gonna block most of the ads anyway?! So there are always
nuances even if Disney's numbers are correct.
Advertising and video on demand are contradictions in terms. There
shouldn't be a single advert on streaming services and I'm sick and
tired of being advertised women’s sanitary products.
I certainly don't believe that people pay for the adverts tiers
on Disney+, ESPN+ or Hulu because they actually want to watch
adverts!
How many actual paying subscribers do they really have, ones
who are still paying every month, not just past subscribers
held on their records? Probably only 15 million.
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
Made up and which bares no resemblance to the real figures of people who >>> watched each episode all the way through which only amounts to about 200. >>>
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so not
necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per quarter. So
if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then un-subscribed, I
would be classed as a paying subscriber for that "quarter" -
You be classed as a subscribed unless you totally deleted your account
not just cancelled your subscription.
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I was only
a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where the special offers
play their part! We had one here recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a
month, for three months. Boom! You're now part of the quarterly
subscriber figures!)
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's all a scam. If
they don't provide everyone with the raw data so it can be annualized
properly take everything to be a scam. Look at the Nvidia and AMD
graphics card scam going on at CES even right now where Nvidia is
claiming a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE
INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES between two genuine ones!
The are 4 Doctors in the Brain of Morbius.
There's only one Doctor and that is Tom Baker the 4th Doctor.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
In article <vlsldp$a8vm$6@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 11/01/2025 01:17, The Doctor wrote:
In article <vls4sa$86ua$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every month.
It's the same people counted multiple times every time they
watch the same show again or watch a different show just like
it is with YouTube. Lets divide this figure by 1000 to get
something that resembles the number of unique viewers per show
more closely. About 157 thousand individuals on average watch
each show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't even get
20,000 per episode even during the same period, 10 times less
than The Acolyte as Doomcock reported.
I'm not sure I'd put Doomcock as a source above proper business
journalists and industry specialists. (CNBC are a major business
Thes so called journalists and specialists are not different and no more >>>> well informed that Doomcock. Most of the stuff they report is completely >>>> made up by unnamed sources.
news outlet.) Clearly with big corporations like Disney, there
CNBC are FAKE NEWS.
will always be a bit of spin - and maybe even propaganda -
whenever they release PR stuff like that, but I wouldn't think
they'd tell outright lies.
Yes they would and have. They tell them about Donald Trump every day.
I wonder how many people that pay for the advert-tier plans on
the various Disney streaming services use ad-blockers and are
only using the advert plans because they are cheaper, and
they're gonna block most of the ads anyway?! So there are always
nuances even if Disney's numbers are correct.
Advertising and video on demand are contradictions in terms. There
shouldn't be a single advert on streaming services and I'm sick and
tired of being advertised women’s sanitary products.
I certainly don't believe that people pay for the adverts tiers
on Disney+, ESPN+ or Hulu because they actually want to watch
adverts!
How many actual paying subscribers do they really have, ones
who are still paying every month, not just past subscribers
held on their records? Probably only 15 million.
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
Made up and which bares no resemblance to the real figures of people who >>>> watched each episode all the way through which only amounts to about 200. >>>>
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so not
necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per quarter. So
if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then un-subscribed, I
would be classed as a paying subscriber for that "quarter" -
You be classed as a subscribed unless you totally deleted your account >>>> not just cancelled your subscription.
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I was only
a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where the special offers
play their part! We had one here recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a
month, for three months. Boom! You're now part of the quarterly
subscriber figures!)
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's all a scam. If >>>> they don't provide everyone with the raw data so it can be annualized
properly take everything to be a scam. Look at the Nvidia and AMD
graphics card scam going on at CES even right now where Nvidia is
claiming a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE
INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES between two genuine ones!
The are 4 Doctors in the Brain of Morbius.
There's only one Doctor and that is Tom Baker the 4th Doctor.
I refer to Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee and Tbakers
are the only 4 Doctors seen in Brain of Mrbius.
The rest are Morbius's faces!
On 11/01/2025 03:46, The Doctor wrote:
In article <vlsldp$a8vm$6@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 11/01/2025 01:17, The Doctor wrote:
In article <vls4sa$86ua$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every month.
It's the same people counted multiple times every time they
watch the same show again or watch a different show just like
it is with YouTube. Lets divide this figure by 1000 to get
something that resembles the number of unique viewers per show
more closely. About 157 thousand individuals on average watch
each show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't even get
20,000 per episode even during the same period, 10 times less
than The Acolyte as Doomcock reported.
I'm not sure I'd put Doomcock as a source above proper business
journalists and industry specialists. (CNBC are a major business
Thes so called journalists and specialists are not different and no more >>>>> well informed that Doomcock. Most of the stuff they report is completely >>>>> made up by unnamed sources.
news outlet.) Clearly with big corporations like Disney, there
CNBC are FAKE NEWS.
will always be a bit of spin - and maybe even propaganda -
whenever they release PR stuff like that, but I wouldn't think
they'd tell outright lies.
Yes they would and have. They tell them about Donald Trump every day. >>>>>
I wonder how many people that pay for the advert-tier plans on
the various Disney streaming services use ad-blockers and are
only using the advert plans because they are cheaper, and
they're gonna block most of the ads anyway?! So there are always
nuances even if Disney's numbers are correct.
Advertising and video on demand are contradictions in terms. There
shouldn't be a single advert on streaming services and I'm sick and
tired of being advertised women’s sanitary products.
I certainly don't believe that people pay for the adverts tiers
on Disney+, ESPN+ or Hulu because they actually want to watch
adverts!
How many actual paying subscribers do they really have, ones
who are still paying every month, not just past subscribers
held on their records? Probably only 15 million.
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
Made up and which bares no resemblance to the real figures of people who >>>>> watched each episode all the way through which only amounts to about 200. >>>>>
My understanding is, (based on something I read online, so not
necessarily a fact) is that everything is done per quarter. So
if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month and then un-subscribed, I
would be classed as a paying subscriber for that "quarter" -
You be classed as a subscribed unless you totally deleted your account >>>>> not just cancelled your subscription.
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I was only
a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where the special offers
play their part! We had one here recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a
month, for three months. Boom! You're now part of the quarterly
subscriber figures!)
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's all a scam. If >>>>> they don't provide everyone with the raw data so it can be annualized >>>>> properly take everything to be a scam. Look at the Nvidia and AMD
graphics card scam going on at CES even right now where Nvidia is
claiming a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE >>>>> INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES between two genuine ones!
The are 4 Doctors in the Brain of Morbius.
There's only one Doctor and that is Tom Baker the 4th Doctor.
I refer to Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee and Tbakers
are the only 4 Doctors seen in Brain of Mrbius.
The rest are Morbius's faces!
Correct.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
In article <vlsqj5$fe35$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 11/01/2025 03:46, The Doctor wrote:month. >>>>>>> It's the same people counted multiple times
In article <vlsldp$a8vm$6@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 11/01/2025 01:17, The Doctor wrote:
In article <vls4sa$86ua$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every
every time they >>>>>>> watch the same show again or watch a
different show just like >>>>>>> it is with YouTube. Lets
divide this figure by 1000 to get >>>>>>> something that
resembles the number of unique viewers per show >>>>>>> more
closely. About 157 thousand individuals on average watch
even get >>>>>>> 20,000 per episode even during the sameeach show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't
period, 10 times less >>>>>>> than The Acolyte as Doomcock
reported.
business >>>>>> journalists and industry specialists. (CNBCI'm not sure I'd put Doomcock as a source above proper
are a major business
different and no more >>>>> well informed that Doomcock. MostThes so called journalists and specialists are not
of the stuff they report is completely >>>>> made up by
unnamed sources.
Disney, therenews outlet.) Clearly with big corporations like
CNBC are FAKE NEWS.
propaganda - >>>>>> whenever they release PR stuff like that,will always be a bit of spin - and maybe even
but I wouldn't think >>>>>> they'd tell outright lies.
Trump every day.Yes they would and have. They tell them about Donald
plans on >>>>>> the various Disney streaming services useI wonder how many people that pay for the advert-tier
ad-blockers and are >>>>>> only using the advert plans because
they are cheaper, and >>>>>> they're gonna block most of the
ads anyway?! So there are always >>>>>> nuances even if
Disney's numbers are correct.
terms. There >>>>> shouldn't be a single advert on streamingAdvertising and video on demand are contradictions in
services and I'm sick and >>>>> tired of being advertised
women’s sanitary products.
adverts tiers >>>>>> on Disney+, ESPN+ or Hulu because theyI certainly don't believe that people pay for the
actually want to watch >>>>>> adverts!
have, ones >>>>>>> who are still paying every month, not justHow many actual paying subscribers do they really
past subscribers >>>>>>> held on their records? Probably only
15 million.
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
figures of people who >>>>> watched each episode all the wayMade up and which bares no resemblance to the real
through which only amounts to about 200.
so not >>>>>> necessarily a fact) is that everything is doneMy understanding is, (based on something I read online,
per quarter. So >>>>>> if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month
and then un-subscribed, I >>>>>> would be classed as a paying
subscriber for that "quarter" -
deleted your account >>>>> not just cancelled yourYou be classed as a subscribed unless you totally
subscription.
was only >>>>>> a subscriber for a part of it. (That's whereand included in that quarter's figures - even though I
the special offers >>>>>> play their part! We had one here
recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a >>>>>> month, for three months.
Boom! You're now part of the quarterly >>>>>> subscriber
figures!)
all a scam. If >>>>> they don't provide everyone with the rawEven if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's
data so it can be annualized >>>>> properly take everything to
be a scam. Look at the Nvidia and AMD >>>>> graphics card scam
going on at CES even right now where Nvidia is >>>>> claiming
a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE
INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES between two genuine ones!
The are 4 Doctors in the Brain of Morbius.
There's only one Doctor and that is Tom Baker the 4th
Doctor.
I refer to Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee and Tbakers
are the only 4 Doctors seen in Brain of Mrbius.
The rest are Morbius's faces!
Correct.
Thank you for letting me clarify. [corrected]
Watch BS and SP go nuts!
On 10/01/2025 22:42, Blueshirt wrote:
If you're not subscribed then you can't be called a
subscriber.
Just having an account with them means they can call you a
subscriber even if you are not paying them anything or even
watching anything. They're nothing more than a pack of
deceiving liars.
If you need to subscribe to obtain their service,
notifications, or show your support then you are a subscriber.
Plus, their figures would never go down, and Disney have
often said their subscription numbers declined in Q1 or Q3
etc... Much
Those are because people have deleted their accounts. They
still count you as a subscriber if your account is still
extant.
more easier to give people special offers that span
"quarters" and get you subscribed, or re-subscribed. Then
you can legitimately be classed as a subscriber for those
quarters, even though you might have only paid a few quid
and then un-subscribed.
See YouTube.
This is basically the gist of what I read a while ago anyway.
It's not so much lies, more a case of manipulation.
So you've never used YouTube.
Most things are a scam or PR spin these days, but I still
don't think the likes of Disney, Netflix and Amazon just
pluck random figures out of the air for their subscriber
figures.
Well they do. They're psychopathic liars.
They might like to spin them in a positive way but
they have to be based on something. You couldn't
say you had one million subscribers and then have no income
from those services in your accounts at the end of the year!
Except they don't publish their accounts. How much has Disney
made from actual paying subscribers? They've never given a
figure.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vlsqj5$fe35$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 11/01/2025 03:46, The Doctor wrote:month. >>>>>>> It's the same people counted multiple times
In article <vlsldp$a8vm$6@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 11/01/2025 01:17, The Doctor wrote:
In article <vls4sa$86ua$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every
every time they >>>>>>> watch the same show again or watch a
different show just like >>>>>>> it is with YouTube. Lets
divide this figure by 1000 to get >>>>>>> something that
resembles the number of unique viewers per show >>>>>>> more
closely. About 157 thousand individuals on average watch
even get >>>>>>> 20,000 per episode even during the sameeach show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't
period, 10 times less >>>>>>> than The Acolyte as Doomcock
reported.
business >>>>>> journalists and industry specialists. (CNBC
I'm not sure I'd put Doomcock as a source above proper
are a major business
different and no more >>>>> well informed that Doomcock. Most
Thes so called journalists and specialists are not
of the stuff they report is completely >>>>> made up by
unnamed sources.
Disney, there
news outlet.) Clearly with big corporations like
propaganda - >>>>>> whenever they release PR stuff like that,
CNBC are FAKE NEWS.
will always be a bit of spin - and maybe even
but I wouldn't think >>>>>> they'd tell outright lies.
Trump every day.
Yes they would and have. They tell them about Donald
plans on >>>>>> the various Disney streaming services use
I wonder how many people that pay for the advert-tier
ad-blockers and are >>>>>> only using the advert plans because
they are cheaper, and >>>>>> they're gonna block most of the
ads anyway?! So there are always >>>>>> nuances even if
Disney's numbers are correct.
terms. There >>>>> shouldn't be a single advert on streaming
Advertising and video on demand are contradictions in
services and I'm sick and >>>>> tired of being advertised
women’s sanitary products.
adverts tiers >>>>>> on Disney+, ESPN+ or Hulu because they
I certainly don't believe that people pay for the
actually want to watch >>>>>> adverts!
have, ones >>>>>>> who are still paying every month, not just
How many actual paying subscribers do they really
past subscribers >>>>>>> held on their records? Probably only
15 million.
figures of people who >>>>> watched each episode all the way
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
Made up and which bares no resemblance to the real
through which only amounts to about 200.
so not >>>>>> necessarily a fact) is that everything is done
My understanding is, (based on something I read online,
per quarter. So >>>>>> if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month
and then un-subscribed, I >>>>>> would be classed as a paying
subscriber for that "quarter" -
deleted your account >>>>> not just cancelled your
You be classed as a subscribed unless you totally
subscription.
was only >>>>>> a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I
the special offers >>>>>> play their part! We had one here
recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a >>>>>> month, for three months.
Boom! You're now part of the quarterly >>>>>> subscriber
figures!)
all a scam. If >>>>> they don't provide everyone with the raw
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's
data so it can be annualized >>>>> properly take everything to
be a scam. Look at the Nvidia and AMD >>>>> graphics card scam
going on at CES even right now where Nvidia is >>>>> claiming
a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE
INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES between two genuine ones!
The are 4 Doctors in the Brain of Morbius.
There's only one Doctor and that is Tom Baker the 4th
Doctor.
I refer to Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee and Tbakers
are the only 4 Doctors seen in Brain of Mrbius.
The rest are Morbius's faces!
Correct.
Thank you for letting me clarify. [corrected]
Watch BS and SP go nuts!
There's no need for anyone to go nuts. If that's what yourself
and Agamemnon believe, that's fine. Quite a lot of fans now
believe that to be the case too.
All I have ever done is point out what was intended by the
production team at the time. And as you are both [supposedly]
Doctor Who fans, neither of you can say I am wrong as you should
both know the story... what is accepted now is a different thing
altogether and it seems to work for a lot of people in fandom.
The difference between myself and you two is I can handle people
having a different opinion to me. Your head-canon is your own.
If it makes "Doctor Who" a nice and comfy safe-space for you
both, great.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 10/01/2025 22:42, Blueshirt wrote:
If you're not subscribed then you can't be called a
subscriber.
Just having an account with them means they can call you a
subscriber even if you are not paying them anything or even
watching anything. They're nothing more than a pack of
deceiving liars.
If you need to subscribe to obtain their service,
notifications, or show your support then you are a subscriber.
Yes, which for Disney+ means that you have to actually pay
something to them (a subscription fee) as there is no free
content!
Have you tried to watch Disney+ without paying a monthly
subscription fee? No? Go try it.
Now go on to YouTube and try watching people's videos without
paying anything to anyone.
Plus, their figures would never go down, and Disney have
often said their subscription numbers declined in Q1 or Q3
etc... Much
Those are because people have deleted their accounts. They
still count you as a subscriber if your account is still
extant.
Let me guess, you saw this mentioned on YouTube by someone,
right?
Based on people I've spoken to, IRL. People [generally] don't
delete their streaming accounts, they just stop paying when
they've had enough... or their trial offer has run out. As they
may want to re-subscribe at a later date if "something decent"
comes out. So when Disney talk about "subscribers" to Disney+,
ESPN or Hulu, I'd say they mean subscribers, not account
holders, otherwise they would just say accounts!
Do they manipulate those figures to suit their own propaganda?
I'm sure they do. But again, their figures have to be based on
something in the real world.
more easier to give people special offers that span
"quarters" and get you subscribed, or re-subscribed. Then
you can legitimately be classed as a subscriber for those
quarters, even though you might have only paid a few quid
and then un-subscribed.
See YouTube.
Disney+/Netflix etc. are not YouTube. The streaming services
might have a beefed-up version of the analytics that YouTube
give creators, but nobody needs to pay money to YouTube to watch
anything. The streaming services know exactly who pays to watch
their content... even if they only pay $1.99 a month... there's
no need to make up anything. They money is coming in, which is
the main thing from their POV.
This is basically the gist of what I read a while ago anyway.
It's not so much lies, more a case of manipulation.
So you've never used YouTube.
You keep comparing a big streaming service like Disney+ to
YouTube. They are not the same thing. I can watch videos on
YouTube without subscribing to anybody. You can't watch ANYTHING
on Disney+ without a paid subscription. Nothing, nada! You have
to have paid something to them to access their content. I can
subscribe to your YouTube channel and watch something without
paying you anything, or just visit your page and watch your
videos without even clicking subscribe.
Apples & Oranges
Most things are a scam or PR spin these days, but I still
don't think the likes of Disney, Netflix and Amazon just
pluck random figures out of the air for their subscriber
figures.
Well they do. They're psychopathic liars.
In your opinion. Although I'm sure their PR Dept does like to
spin a few yarns here and there like all the BIG companies do.
But your viewpoint is not logical, as if Disney just made up
subscription figures willy-nilly then they would never say that
their subscription levels declined! They would just say their
subscribers went up, and up and up... and that they were the
biggest and best streaming service ever.
Everyone can massage figures to suit their own point of view but
when you are a corporation the size of Disney you can't pretend
you have millions of people paying a subscription to a service
and not have that reflected in your tax returns and annual
accounts!
They might like to spin them in a positive way but
they have to be based on something. You couldn't
say you had one million subscribers and then have no income
from those services in your accounts at the end of the year!
Except they don't publish their accounts. How much has Disney
made from actual paying subscribers? They've never given a
figure.
Why would you expect a big corporation to show YOU their
accounts? Do you show your bank account to just anyone? However,
their accounts would certainly need to be audited and tax
returns filed with the IRS, (etc.) Their accounts would not be a
secret and their incomes from their various companies and
business units. (The Walt Disney Company own more than just
Disney+.) would be listed somewhere. Nobody can exist in a
financial vacuum, but there's no reason why YOU would need to
know about their income and expenditure.
You're not even a Disney+ subscriber and "Doctor Who" being
streamed on Disney+ overseas has no relevance whatsoever to you,
as you are in the UK. Yet you seem obsessively fixated over a
big company that doesn't interfere with your life... if I was
you I'd be getting more excited over how the BBC squander your
licence fee money on wages for celebrity presenters!
Just having an account with them means they can call you a subscriberMany years ago (well 15-20, anyway) I was convinced to set up an account
even if you are not paying them anything or even watching anything.
They're nothing more than a pack of deceiving liars.
In article <vls4sa$86ua$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's all a scam. If
they don't provide everyone with the raw data so it can be annualized
properly take everything to be a scam. Look at the Nvidia and AMD
graphics card scam going on at CES even right now where Nvidia is
claiming a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE
INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES between two genuine ones!
The are 4 Doctors in the Brain of Morbius.
The True Doctor wrote on 11/01/2025 1:34 pm:
<Snip>
Just having an account with them means they can call you a subscriberMany years ago (well 15-20, anyway) I was convinced to set up an account
even if you are not paying them anything or even watching anything.
They're nothing more than a pack of deceiving liars.
on LinkedIn (or whatever it's called) but, after maybe six months of >inaction, I 'Closed' or 'Deleted' (whatever it's called) my account.
Every couple of months though, I get an e-mail from LinkedIn telling me
my (Closed/Deleted) account has been viewed!!
--
Daniel
The Doctor wrote on 11/01/2025 12:17 pm:^^^^^<-paedophile talker noted
In article <vls4sa$86ua$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
<Snip>
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's all a scam. If
they don't provide everyone with the raw data so it can be annualized
properly take everything to be a scam. Look at the Nvidia and AMD
graphics card scam going on at CES even right now where Nvidia is
claiming a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE
INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES between two genuine ones!
The are 4 Doctors in the Brain of Morbius.
YOU, Binky, include approx 90 lines of TOTALLY DISCONNECTED information
(including Aggy's hughly informative information about Frame rates (.... >NOT)) .... just to add YOUR totally disconnected little factoid, Binky!!^^^^^<-paedophile talker noted
Well done!!
--
Daniel
i will never subscribe to Disney plus.
The Doctor wrote:
i will never subscribe to Disney plus.
Good for you Dave, that's what free choice is all about. Nobody
is forcing you to pay for content on any streaming service.
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
In article <xn0p0q6u2bnvauz00b@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
i will never subscribe to Disney plus.
Good for you Dave, that's what free choice is all about.
Nobody is forcing you to pay for content on any streaming
service.
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
Make a good guess.
The Doctor wrote:
i will never subscribe to Disney plus.
Good for you Dave, that's what free choice is all about. Nobody
is forcing you to pay for content on any streaming service.
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vlsqj5$fe35$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 11/01/2025 03:46, The Doctor wrote:month. >>>>>>> It's the same people counted multiple times
In article <vlsldp$a8vm$6@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 11/01/2025 01:17, The Doctor wrote:
In article <vls4sa$86ua$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every
every time they >>>>>>> watch the same show again or watch a
different show just like >>>>>>> it is with YouTube. Lets
divide this figure by 1000 to get >>>>>>> something that
resembles the number of unique viewers per show >>>>>>> more
closely. About 157 thousand individuals on average watch
even get >>>>>>> 20,000 per episode even during the sameeach show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't
period, 10 times less >>>>>>> than The Acolyte as Doomcock
reported.
business >>>>>> journalists and industry specialists. (CNBC
I'm not sure I'd put Doomcock as a source above proper
are a major business
different and no more >>>>> well informed that Doomcock. Most
Thes so called journalists and specialists are not
of the stuff they report is completely >>>>> made up by
unnamed sources.
Disney, there
news outlet.) Clearly with big corporations like
propaganda - >>>>>> whenever they release PR stuff like that,
CNBC are FAKE NEWS.
will always be a bit of spin - and maybe even
but I wouldn't think >>>>>> they'd tell outright lies.
Trump every day.
Yes they would and have. They tell them about Donald
plans on >>>>>> the various Disney streaming services use
I wonder how many people that pay for the advert-tier
ad-blockers and are >>>>>> only using the advert plans because
they are cheaper, and >>>>>> they're gonna block most of the
ads anyway?! So there are always >>>>>> nuances even if
Disney's numbers are correct.
terms. There >>>>> shouldn't be a single advert on streaming
Advertising and video on demand are contradictions in
services and I'm sick and >>>>> tired of being advertised
women’s sanitary products.
adverts tiers >>>>>> on Disney+, ESPN+ or Hulu because they
I certainly don't believe that people pay for the
actually want to watch >>>>>> adverts!
have, ones >>>>>>> who are still paying every month, not just
How many actual paying subscribers do they really
past subscribers >>>>>>> held on their records? Probably only
15 million.
figures of people who >>>>> watched each episode all the way
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
Made up and which bares no resemblance to the real
through which only amounts to about 200.
so not >>>>>> necessarily a fact) is that everything is done
My understanding is, (based on something I read online,
per quarter. So >>>>>> if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month
and then un-subscribed, I >>>>>> would be classed as a paying
subscriber for that "quarter" -
deleted your account >>>>> not just cancelled your
You be classed as a subscribed unless you totally
subscription.
was only >>>>>> a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I
the special offers >>>>>> play their part! We had one here
recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a >>>>>> month, for three months.
Boom! You're now part of the quarterly >>>>>> subscriber
figures!)
all a scam. If >>>>> they don't provide everyone with the raw
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's
data so it can be annualized >>>>> properly take everything to
be a scam. Look at the Nvidia and AMD >>>>> graphics card scam
going on at CES even right now where Nvidia is >>>>> claiming
a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE
INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES between two genuine ones!
The are 4 Doctors in the Brain of Morbius.
There's only one Doctor and that is Tom Baker the 4th
Doctor.
I refer to Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee and Tbakers
are the only 4 Doctors seen in Brain of Mrbius.
The rest are Morbius's faces!
Correct.
Thank you for letting me clarify. [corrected]
Watch BS and SP go nuts!
There's no need for anyone to go nuts. If that's what yourself
and Agamemnon believe, that's fine. Quite a lot of fans now
believe that to be the case too.
All I have ever done is point out what was intended by the
production team at the time. And as you are both [supposedly]
Doctor Who fans, neither of you can say I am wrong as you should
both know the story... what is accepted now is a different thing
altogether and it seems to work for a lot of people in fandom.
The difference between myself and you two is I can handle people
having a different opinion to me. Your head-canon is your own.
If it makes "Doctor Who" a nice and comfy safe-space for you
both, great.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p0q6u2bnvauz00b@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
i will never subscribe to Disney plus.
Good for you Dave, that's what free choice is all about.
Nobody is forcing you to pay for content on any streaming
service.
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
Make a good guess.
Erm... no, you don't?
Am I close?!
On 11/01/2025 20:25, Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vlsqj5$fe35$1@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 11/01/2025 03:46, The Doctor wrote:month. >>>>>>> It's the same people counted multiple times
In article <vlsldp$a8vm$6@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 11/01/2025 01:17, The Doctor wrote:
In article <vls4sa$86ua$2@dont-email.me>,
The True Doctor <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
On 10/01/2025 16:19, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
157 million people haven't been watching Disney+ every
every time they >>>>>>> watch the same show again or watch a
different show just like >>>>>>> it is with YouTube. Lets
divide this figure by 1000 to get >>>>>>> something that
resembles the number of unique viewers per show >>>>>>> more
closely. About 157 thousand individuals on average watch
even get >>>>>>> 20,000 per episode even during the sameeach show on Disney+ every month. Doctor Whoke can't
period, 10 times less >>>>>>> than The Acolyte as Doomcock
reported.
business >>>>>> journalists and industry specialists. (CNBC
I'm not sure I'd put Doomcock as a source above proper
are a major business
different and no more >>>>> well informed that Doomcock. Most
Thes so called journalists and specialists are not
of the stuff they report is completely >>>>> made up by
unnamed sources.
Disney, there
news outlet.) Clearly with big corporations like
propaganda - >>>>>> whenever they release PR stuff like that,
CNBC are FAKE NEWS.
will always be a bit of spin - and maybe even
but I wouldn't think >>>>>> they'd tell outright lies.
Trump every day.
Yes they would and have. They tell them about Donald
plans on >>>>>> the various Disney streaming services use
I wonder how many people that pay for the advert-tier
ad-blockers and are >>>>>> only using the advert plans because
they are cheaper, and >>>>>> they're gonna block most of the
ads anyway?! So there are always >>>>>> nuances even if
Disney's numbers are correct.
terms. There >>>>> shouldn't be a single advert on streaming
Advertising and video on demand are contradictions in
services and I'm sick and >>>>> tired of being advertised
women’s sanitary products.
adverts tiers >>>>>> on Disney+, ESPN+ or Hulu because they
I certainly don't believe that people pay for the
actually want to watch >>>>>> adverts!
have, ones >>>>>>> who are still paying every month, not just
How many actual paying subscribers do they really
past subscribers >>>>>>> held on their records? Probably only
15 million.
figures of people who >>>>> watched each episode all the way
In fairness, the article did say "estimated"...
Made up and which bares no resemblance to the real
through which only amounts to about 200.
so not >>>>>> necessarily a fact) is that everything is done
My understanding is, (based on something I read online,
per quarter. So >>>>>> if I subscribed to Disney+ for a month
and then un-subscribed, I >>>>>> would be classed as a paying
subscriber for that "quarter" -
deleted your account >>>>> not just cancelled your
You be classed as a subscribed unless you totally
subscription.
was only >>>>>> a subscriber for a part of it. (That's where
and included in that quarter's figures - even though I
the special offers >>>>>> play their part! We had one here
recently, Disney+ for €1.99 a >>>>>> month, for three months.
Boom! You're now part of the quarterly >>>>>> subscriber
figures!)
all a scam. If >>>>> they don't provide everyone with the raw
Even if it cost you nothing you'd still be counted. It's
data so it can be annualized >>>>> properly take everything to
be a scam. Look at the Nvidia and AMD >>>>> graphics card scam
going on at CES even right now where Nvidia is >>>>> claiming
a 12 GB RTX 5070 is as fast as an 24 GB RTX 4090. AFTER THE
INSERTION OF 3 FAKE FRAMES between two genuine ones!
The are 4 Doctors in the Brain of Morbius.
There's only one Doctor and that is Tom Baker the 4th
Doctor.
I refer to Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee and Tbakers
are the only 4 Doctors seen in Brain of Mrbius.
The rest are Morbius's faces!
Correct.
Thank you for letting me clarify. [corrected]
Watch BS and SP go nuts!
There's no need for anyone to go nuts. If that's what yourself
and Agamemnon believe, that's fine. Quite a lot of fans now
believe that to be the case too.
All I have ever done is point out what was intended by the
production team at the time. And as you are both [supposedly]
Doctor Who fans, neither of you can say I am wrong as you should
both know the story... what is accepted now is a different thing
altogether and it seems to work for a lot of people in fandom.
It fails to work period, since it contradicts the 11th Doctor's entire
arc, The Five Doctors, The Three Doctors, The Two Doctors, The Deadly >Assassin, The Keeper of Traken, Mawdrin Undead, The Name of the Doctor,
The Day of the Doctor, The Time of the Doctor, Listen, and Twice Upon A
Time.
The difference between myself and you two is I can handle people
having a different opinion to me. Your head-canon is your own.
If it makes "Doctor Who" a nice and comfy safe-space for you
both, great.
Doctor Who ended in 2017! Everything after that year is degenerate fan
fic. and therefore not canon.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
On 2025-01-12 2:08 p.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
i will never subscribe to Disney plus.
Good for you Dave, that's what free choice is all about.
Nobody is forcing you to pay for content on any streaming
service.
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
He doesn't even own a TV so why would he subscribe? Daddy
takes care of all those things for him.
Paedophile Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-12 2:08 p.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
i will never subscribe to Disney plus.
Good for you Dave, that's what free choice is all about.
Nobody is forcing you to pay for content on any streaming
service.
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
He doesn't even own a TV so why would he subscribe? Daddy
takes care of all those things for him.
I'd say it's more a case of being too mean to pay for a
subscription to anything!
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-12 2:08 p.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
i will never subscribe to Disney plus.
Good for you Dave, that's what free choice is all about.
Nobody is forcing you to pay for content on any streaming
service.
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
He doesn't even own a TV so why would he subscribe? Daddy
takes care of all those things for him.
I'd say it's more a case of being too mean to pay for a
subscription to anything!
On 2025-01-13 9:03 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-12 2:08 p.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
i will never subscribe to Disney plus.
Good for you Dave, that's what free choice is all about.
Nobody is forcing you to pay for content on any streaming
service.
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
He doesn't even own a TV so why would he subscribe? Daddy
takes care of all those things for him.
I'd say it's more a case of being too mean to pay for a
subscription to anything!
It's a case of when your parents control your allowance you need to
pick and choose where you spend it.
On 2025-01-14 00:11:48 +0000, Idlehands said:
On 2025-01-13 9:03 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-12 2:08 p.m., Blueshirt wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
i will never subscribe to Disney plus.
Good for you Dave, that's what free choice is all about.
Nobody is forcing you to pay for content on any streaming
service.
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
He doesn't even own a TV so why would he subscribe? Daddy
takes care of all those things for him.
I'd say it's more a case of being too mean to pay for a
subscription to anything!
It's a case of when your parents control your allowance you need to
pick and choose where you spend it.
Every sane person also has to pick and chooses where to spend their
money, especially these days of prices going up and up and up. :-(
It's only morons and rich idiots who don't care about their spending.
The True Doctor wrote:
On 10/01/2025 22:42, Blueshirt wrote:
If you're not subscribed then you can't be called a
subscriber.
Just having an account with them means they can call you a
subscriber even if you are not paying them anything or even
watching anything. They're nothing more than a pack of
deceiving liars.
If you need to subscribe to obtain their service,
notifications, or show your support then you are a subscriber.
Yes, which for Disney+ means that you have to actually pay
something to them (a subscription fee) as there is no free
content!
Have you tried to watch Disney+ without paying a monthly
subscription fee? No? Go try it.
Now go on to YouTube and try watching people's videos without
paying anything to anyone.
Plus, their figures would never go down, and Disney have
often said their subscription numbers declined in Q1 or Q3
etc... Much
Those are because people have deleted their accounts. They
still count you as a subscriber if your account is still
extant.
Let me guess, you saw this mentioned on YouTube by someone,
right?
Based on people I've spoken to, IRL. People [generally] don't
delete their streaming accounts, they just stop paying when
they've had enough... or their trial offer has run out. As they
may want to re-subscribe at a later date if "something decent"
comes out. So when Disney talk about "subscribers" to Disney+,
ESPN or Hulu, I'd say they mean subscribers, not account
holders, otherwise they would just say accounts!
Do they manipulate those figures to suit their own propaganda?
I'm sure they do. But again, their figures have to be based on
something in the real world.
more easier to give people special offers that span
"quarters" and get you subscribed, or re-subscribed. Then
you can legitimately be classed as a subscriber for those
quarters, even though you might have only paid a few quid
and then un-subscribed.
See YouTube.
Disney+/Netflix etc. are not YouTube. The streaming services
might have a beefed-up version of the analytics that YouTube
give creators, but nobody needs to pay money to YouTube to watch
anything. The streaming services know exactly who pays to watch
their content... even if they only pay $1.99 a month... there's
no need to make up anything. They money is coming in, which is
the main thing from their POV.
This is basically the gist of what I read a while ago anyway.
It's not so much lies, more a case of manipulation.
So you've never used YouTube.
You keep comparing a big streaming service like Disney+ to
YouTube. They are not the same thing. I can watch videos on
YouTube without subscribing to anybody. You can't watch ANYTHING
on Disney+ without a paid subscription. Nothing, nada! You have
to have paid something to them to access their content. I can
subscribe to your YouTube channel and watch something without
paying you anything, or just visit your page and watch your
videos without even clicking subscribe.
Apples & Oranges
Most things are a scam or PR spin these days, but I still
don't think the likes of Disney, Netflix and Amazon just
pluck random figures out of the air for their subscriber
figures.
Well they do. They're psychopathic liars.
In your opinion. Although I'm sure their PR Dept does like to
spin a few yarns here and there like all the BIG companies do.
But your viewpoint is not logical, as if Disney just made up
subscription figures willy-nilly then they would never say that
their subscription levels declined! They would just say their
subscribers went up, and up and up... and that they were the
biggest and best streaming service ever.
Everyone can massage figures to suit their own point of view but
when you are a corporation the size of Disney you can't pretend
you have millions of people paying a subscription to a service
and not have that reflected in your tax returns and annual
accounts!
They might like to spin them in a positive way but
they have to be based on something. You couldn't
say you had one million subscribers and then have no income
from those services in your accounts at the end of the year!
Except they don't publish their accounts. How much has Disney
made from actual paying subscribers? They've never given a
figure.
Why would you expect a big corporation to show YOU their
accounts? Do you show your bank account to just anyone? However,
their accounts would certainly need to be audited and tax
returns filed with the IRS, (etc.) Their accounts would not be a
secret and their incomes from their various companies and
business units. (The Walt Disney Company own more than just
Disney+.) would be listed somewhere. Nobody can exist in a
financial vacuum, but there's no reason why YOU would need to
know about their income and expenditure.
You're not even a Disney+ subscriber and "Doctor Who" being
streamed on Disney+ overseas has no relevance whatsoever to you,
as you are in the UK. Yet you seem obsessively fixated over a
big company that doesn't interfere with your life... if I was
you I'd be getting more excited over how the BBC squander your
licence fee money on wages for celebrity presenters!
On 11/01/2025 21:27, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 10/01/2025 22:42, Blueshirt wrote:
If you're not subscribed then you can't be called a
subscriber.
Just having an account with them means they can call you a
subscriber even if you are not paying them anything or even
watching anything. They're nothing more than a pack of
deceiving liars.
If you need to subscribe to obtain their service,
notifications, or show your support then you are a subscriber.
Yes, which for Disney+ means that you have to actually pay
something to them (a subscription fee) as there is no free
content!
Nope. Once you've registered then you count as a subscriber, including
if you're on a free 12 month subscription given away by your mobile
phone provider. Even if you never pay Disney anything every again they
still count you as a subscriber.
Have you tried to watch Disney+ without paying a monthly
subscription fee? No? Go try it.
People have done so for nothing legally because they subscribed to a
special offer.
Now go on to YouTube and try watching people's videos without
paying anything to anyone.
And you're still a subscriber when paying nothing.
Plus, their figures would never go down, and Disney have
often said their subscription numbers declined in Q1 or Q3
etc... Much
Those are because people have deleted their accounts. They
still count you as a subscriber if your account is still
extant.
Let me guess, you saw this mentioned on YouTube by someone,
right?
I know a scam when I see one.
Based on people I've spoken to, IRL. People [generally] don't
delete their streaming accounts, they just stop paying when
they've had enough... or their trial offer has run out. As they
So they still count as subscribers for the statistics even when paying >nothing for nothing.
may want to re-subscribe at a later date if "something decent"
comes out. So when Disney talk about "subscribers" to Disney+,
ESPN or Hulu, I'd say they mean subscribers, not account
holders, otherwise they would just say accounts!
Nope. If you have an account with them then they count you as a
subscriber. How do you think those free subscriptions work?
Do they manipulate those figures to suit their own propaganda?
I'm sure they do. But again, their figures have to be based on
something in the real world.
People who are registered with them and/or have given them their >credit/payment card details, even if the card is no longer valid.
more easier to give people special offers that span
"quarters" and get you subscribed, or re-subscribed. Then
you can legitimately be classed as a subscriber for those
quarters, even though you might have only paid a few quid
and then un-subscribed.
See YouTube.
Disney+/Netflix etc. are not YouTube. The streaming services
might have a beefed-up version of the analytics that YouTube
give creators, but nobody needs to pay money to YouTube to watch
anything. The streaming services know exactly who pays to watch
their content... even if they only pay $1.99 a month... there's
no need to make up anything. They money is coming in, which is
the main thing from their POV.
They're compulsive liars. They want to make it look like Disney+ has
more 'subscribers' than any other service in order to get more people to
sign up and pay, and con their shareholders that the service is growing.
This is basically the gist of what I read a while ago anyway.
It's not so much lies, more a case of manipulation.
So you've never used YouTube.
You keep comparing a big streaming service like Disney+ to
YouTube. They are not the same thing. I can watch videos on
YouTube without subscribing to anybody. You can't watch ANYTHING
on Disney+ without a paid subscription. Nothing, nada! You have
That makes no difference to Disney. You pay nothing to watch nothing.
Just extend the line to the origin of the graph.
to have paid something to them to access their content. I can
Nope. Vodaphone gave away free 12 month subscriptions to Disney+. People
only those subscriptions paid Disney+ nothing.
subscribe to your YouTube channel and watch something without
paying you anything, or just visit your page and watch your
videos without even clicking subscribe.
Apples & Oranges
Most things are a scam or PR spin these days, but I still
don't think the likes of Disney, Netflix and Amazon just
pluck random figures out of the air for their subscriber
figures.
Well they do. They're psychopathic liars.
In your opinion. Although I'm sure their PR Dept does like to
spin a few yarns here and there like all the BIG companies do.
But your viewpoint is not logical, as if Disney just made up
subscription figures willy-nilly then they would never say that
their subscription levels declined! They would just say their
Yes they would if someone deletes their account.
subscribers went up, and up and up... and that they were the
biggest and best streaming service ever.
Everyone can massage figures to suit their own point of view but
when you are a corporation the size of Disney you can't pretend
you have millions of people paying a subscription to a service
and not have that reflected in your tax returns and annual
accounts!
Tax returns do not require publication of subscriber numbers, accounts,
or where any of the profits, if there are any, came from. All they
require is a number declaring the profit or loss for a certain year and >whatever tax credit or credits you want to claim.
They might like to spin them in a positive way but
they have to be based on something. You couldn't
say you had one million subscribers and then have no income
from those services in your accounts at the end of the year!
Except they don't publish their accounts. How much has Disney
made from actual paying subscribers? They've never given a
figure.
Why would you expect a big corporation to show YOU their
accounts? Do you show your bank account to just anyone? However,
Why would they show them to the tax man then? You've just discredited
your previous paragraph.
their accounts would certainly need to be audited and tax
returns filed with the IRS, (etc.) Their accounts would not be a
No they wouldn't. The IRS doesn't audit your accounts. An independent
auditor does that for the benefit of shareholders so they don't get
ripped off.
secret and their incomes from their various companies and
business units. (The Walt Disney Company own more than just
They're a secret to the public and to the tax man. Obviously someone in
the debt collecting department would know who is paying their bills, who
is not paying their bills, and who doesn't have to pay anything.
Disney+.) would be listed somewhere. Nobody can exist in a
financial vacuum, but there's no reason why YOU would need to
know about their income and expenditure.
There's no reason for the tax man to know it either. All you put on your
tax return is you profit deceleration for they year, and it doesn't even
have to be the actual profit you make in that year since you can carry
it over to the next year or even pass it back to the year before.
You're not even a Disney+ subscriber and "Doctor Who" being
Why would I want to watch kiddie programmes?
streamed on Disney+ overseas has no relevance whatsoever to you,
Doctor Who ended in 2017 so of course the crap that Disney+ streams is
of no relevance.
as you are in the UK. Yet you seem obsessively fixated over a
big company that doesn't interfere with your life... if I was
It has brought about the continued destruction of Doctor Who, therefore
it has interfered with my life.
you I'd be getting more excited over how the BBC squander your
licence fee money on wages for celebrity presenters!
They've lost more money destroying Doctor Who than they pay celebrity >presenters. Billions they've lost thanks to going woke.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it >stands for." -William Shatner
On 2025-01-13 9:03 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-12 2:08 p.m., Blueshirt wrote:
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
He doesn't even own a TV so why would he subscribe? Daddy
takes care of all those things for him.
I'd say it's more a case of being too mean to pay for a
subscription to anything!
It's a case of when your parents control your allowance you
need to pick and choose where you spend it.
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-13 9:03 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-12 2:08 p.m., Blueshirt wrote:
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
He doesn't even own a TV so why would he subscribe? Daddy
takes care of all those things for him.
I'd say it's more a case of being too mean to pay for a
subscription to anything!
It's a case of when your parents control your allowance you
need to pick and choose where you spend it.
There is a serious issue here actually... I mean is it
responsible parenting to manage the funds of your grown-up son
who has the mind of a child? I'd say it's acceptable and quite understandable. I mean, if you let your man-boy spend all of
their allowance willy-nilly, they'll just end up with a bedroom
full of 7th Doctor figures and toy Daleks.
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-13 9:03 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-12 2:08 p.m., Blueshirt wrote:
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
He doesn't even own a TV so why would he subscribe? Daddy
takes care of all those things for him.
I'd say it's more a case of being too mean to pay for a
subscription to anything!
It's a case of when your parents control your allowance you
need to pick and choose where you spend it.
There is a serious issue here actually... I mean is it
responsible parenting to manage the funds of your grown-up son
who has the mind of a child? I'd say it's acceptable and quite >understandable. I mean, if you let your man-boy spend all of
their allowance willy-nilly, they'll just end up with a bedroom
full of 7th Doctor figures and toy Daleks.
On 11/01/2025 21:27, Blueshirt wrote:
You're not even a Disney+ subscriber
Why would I want to watch kiddie programmes?
...and "Doctor Who" being streamed on Disney+ overseas has
no relevance whatsoever to you
Doctor Who ended in 2017 so of course the crap that Disney+
streams is of no relevance.
as you are in the UK. Yet you seem obsessively fixated over a
big company that doesn't interfere with your life... if I was
It has brought about the continued destruction of Doctor Who,
therefore it has interfered with my life.
If I was you I'd be getting more excited over how the BBC
squander your licence fee money on wages for celebrity
presenters.
They've lost more money destroying Doctor Who than they pay
celebrity presenters. Billions they've lost thanks to going
woke.
In article <xn0p0skx1dyebn0003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Idlehands wrote:
It's a case of when your parents control your allowance you
need to pick and choose where you spend it.
There is a serious issue here actually... I mean is it
responsible parenting to manage the funds of your grown-up
son who has the mind of a child? I'd say it's acceptable and
quite understandable. I mean, if you let your man-boy spend
all of their allowance willy-nilly, they'll just end up with
a bedroom full of 7th Doctor figures and toy Daleks.
You warped bugger!
The True Doctor wrote:
On 11/01/2025 21:27, Blueshirt wrote:
You're not even a Disney+ subscriber
Why would I want to watch kiddie programmes?
<rolls eyes> Like there's no films or proper TV shows on there
too... they have Hulu content, Starz content, the MCU, plus the
very enjoyable Star Wars stuff! Writing it all off as "kiddie"
programmes just shows your ignorance.
Oh, and "Welcome to Wrexham" too... that's very good. (Really!)
One of the best behind-the-scenes football documentaries
around... footie, with Deadpool. (!)
...and "Doctor Who" being streamed on Disney+ overseas has
no relevance whatsoever to you
Doctor Who ended in 2017 so of course the crap that Disney+
streams is of no relevance.
But you keep going on about them! It's like you're obsessed with
Disney.
I can understand those YouTube channels you watch having an
issue with Disney if they are created by fans in the US, as they
would have to use Disney+ to watch Doctor Who [legally]... you
don't!
So it seems to me you are fighting a war that has nothing to do
with you.
as you are in the UK. Yet you seem obsessively fixated over a
big company that doesn't interfere with your life... if I was
It has brought about the continued destruction of Doctor Who,
therefore it has interfered with my life.
According to you and your posts here over the years, Doctor Who
was being destroyed long before Disney came on board. Take your
cause back to the start of the show's destruction... be it Steven
Moffat, the original RTD era, or back as far as JNT even!
Also, I don't know how you think Disney are continuing the
destruction of Doctor Who, as all they seem to have done is fund
the show... I don't believe that they are inventing the
story-lines or writing the scripts. RTD is the showrunner of
Doctor Who, if you are unhappy with what you see in the episodes
then it would seem to me that the buck stops with him and his
production team.
The anti-Disney cause is a strange bandwagon for you to jump on
when you claim Doctor Who finished in 2017, yet Disney had
nothing to do with Doctor Who back then. So how can Disney
continue to destroy Doctor Who when the show "finished in
2017"?! Ironically, it's quite possible that their funding kept
the show alive!
If I was you I'd be getting more excited over how the BBC
squander your licence fee money on wages for celebrity
presenters.
They've lost more money destroying Doctor Who than they pay
celebrity presenters. Billions they've lost thanks to going
woke.
Just as well people like you continue to fund the BBC when you
pay for your TV Licence fee every year then... Plus, having
overseas partners to invest money in to their shows probably
comes in handy for the BBC too. Seems to me that's a win/win!
As an aside, I don't think Gary Lineker is worth a salary of
over a million quid a year to present Match of the Day.... and
Zoe Ball on just under a million quid a year to present a RADIO
show!
Of course, I suppose there's not that many YouTube channels
banging on about that, is there?
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p0skx1dyebn0003@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Idlehands wrote:
It's a case of when your parents control your allowance you
need to pick and choose where you spend it.
There is a serious issue here actually... I mean is it
responsible parenting to manage the funds of your grown-up
son who has the mind of a child? I'd say it's acceptable and
quite understandable. I mean, if you let your man-boy spend
all of their allowance willy-nilly, they'll just end up with
a bedroom full of 7th Doctor figures and toy Daleks.
You warped bugger!
Anyone who buys Seventh Doctor figures would be the warped ones!
;-)
[Somebody is surely going to come along now and say they have
some Seventh Doctor figures on their shelf.]
In article <xn0p0sqfse5tbky004@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
As an aside, I don't think Gary Lineker is worth a salary of
over a million quid a year to present Match of the Day....
and Zoe Ball on just under a million quid a year to present
a RADIO show!
Of course, I suppose there's not that many YouTube channels
banging on about that, is there?
How do you fund RTE, BS?
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p0sqfse5tbky004@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
As an aside, I don't think Gary Lineker is worth a salary of
over a million quid a year to present Match of the Day....
and Zoe Ball on just under a million quid a year to present
a RADIO show!
Of course, I suppose there's not that many YouTube channels
banging on about that, is there?
How do you fund RTE, BS?
RTE is funded by adverts and a TV licence fee.
In article <xn0p0ss6me8726400a@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
How do you fund RTE, BS?
RTE is funded by adverts and a TV licence fee.
A different model.
Here CBC is funded by taxes.
The Doctor wrote:
In article <xn0p0ss6me8726400a@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
How do you fund RTE, BS?
RTE is funded by adverts and a TV licence fee.
A different model.
Here CBC is funded by taxes.
Technically the TV licence is a tax of sorts, as it is a legal
requirement. Probably an unjust tax though as the richest
household in the country pays exactly the same as the poorest
household... and regardless of whether they even watch RTE.
There's always discussions going on over here about replacing
the TV licence fee but nothing ever seems to come of the
government commissions and reports...
In article <xn0p0q6u2bnvauz00b@post.eweka.nl>,
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
i will never subscribe to Disney plus.
Good for you Dave, that's what free choice is all about. Nobody
is forcing you to pay for content on any streaming service.
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
Make a good guess.
On 2025-01-14 4:41 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:--
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-13 9:03 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-12 2:08 p.m., Blueshirt wrote:
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
He doesn't even own a TV so why would he subscribe? Daddy
takes care of all those things for him.
I'd say it's more a case of being too mean to pay for a
subscription to anything!
It's a case of when your parents control your allowance you
need to pick and choose where you spend it.
There is a serious issue here actually... I mean is it
responsible parenting to manage the funds of your grown-up son
who has the mind of a child? I'd say it's acceptable and quite
understandable. I mean, if you let your man-boy spend all of
their allowance willy-nilly, they'll just end up with a bedroom
full of 7th Doctor figures and toy Daleks.
I think it's a case of never giving him any responsibility including
managing his own money or going out and earning a job on his own and
being responsible for all those adult things like rent/utilities/food/entertainment.
His child like "mind" is the result of never having to grow up or being
held responsible for his actions.
.... but he does have a University Degree or something, doesn't he??
On 11/01/2025 21:27, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 10/01/2025 22:42, Blueshirt wrote:
If you're not subscribed then you can't be called a
subscriber.
Just having an account with them means they can call you a
subscriber even if you are not paying them anything or even
watching anything. They're nothing more than a pack of
deceiving liars.
If you need to subscribe to obtain their service,
notifications, or show your support then you are a subscriber.
Yes, which for Disney+ means that you have to actually pay
something to them (a subscription fee) as there is no free
content!
Nope. Once you've registered then you count as a subscriber, including
if you're on a free 12 month subscription given away by your mobile
phone provider. Even if you never pay Disney anything every again they
still count you as a subscriber.
Plus, their figures would never go down, and Disney have
often said their subscription numbers declined in Q1 or Q3
etc... Much
Those are because people have deleted their accounts. They
still count you as a subscriber if your account is still
extant.
Based on people I've spoken to, IRL. People [generally] don't
delete their streaming accounts, they just stop paying when
they've had enough... or their trial offer has run out. As they
So they still count as subscribers for the statistics even when paying nothing for nothing.
Why would you expect a big corporation to show YOU their
accounts? Do you show your bank account to just anyone? However,
Why would they show them to the tax man then? You've just discredited
your previous paragraph.
their accounts would certainly need to be audited and tax
returns filed with the IRS, (etc.) Their accounts would not be a
No they wouldn't. The IRS doesn't audit your accounts. An independent
auditor does that for the benefit of shareholders so they don't get
ripped off.
secret and their incomes from their various companies and
business units. (The Walt Disney Company own more than just
They're a secret to the public and to the tax man. Obviously someone in
the debt collecting department would know who is paying their bills, who
is not paying their bills, and who doesn't have to pay anything.
Disney+.) would be listed somewhere. Nobody can exist in a
financial vacuum, but there's no reason why YOU would need to
know about their income and expenditure.
There's no reason for the tax man to know it either. All you put on your
tax return is you profit deceleration for they year, and it doesn't even
have to be the actual profit you make in that year since you can carry
it over to the next year or even pass it back to the year before.
You're not even a Disney+ subscriber and "Doctor Who" being
Why would I want to watch kiddie programmes?
streamed on Disney+ overseas has no relevance whatsoever to you,
Doctor Who ended in 2017 so of course the crap that Disney+ streams is
of no relevance.
as you are in the UK. Yet you seem obsessively fixated over a
big company that doesn't interfere with your life... if I was
It has brought about the continued destruction of Doctor Who, therefore
it has interfered with my life.
On 13/01/2025 8:29 am, The Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted!
In article <xn0p0q6u2bnvauz00b@post.eweka.nl>,Come on, Binky, would ANYBODY (YOU excluded) really try to make a BAD
Blueshirt <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
i will never subscribe to Disney plus.
Good for you Dave, that's what free choice is all about. Nobody
is forcing you to pay for content on any streaming service.
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
Make a good guess.
guess??
--
Daniel70
On 15/01/2025 12:39 am, Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-14 4:41 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:--
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-13 9:03 a.m., Blueshirt wrote:
Idlehands wrote:
On 2025-01-12 2:08 p.m., Blueshirt wrote:
Do you actually subscribe to anything though?
He doesn't even own a TV so why would he subscribe? Daddy
takes care of all those things for him.
I'd say it's more a case of being too mean to pay for a
subscription to anything!
It's a case of when your parents control your allowance you
need to pick and choose where you spend it.
There is a serious issue here actually... I mean is it
responsible parenting to manage the funds of your grown-up son
who has the mind of a child? I'd say it's acceptable and quite
understandable. I mean, if you let your man-boy spend all of
their allowance willy-nilly, they'll just end up with a bedroom
full of 7th Doctor figures and toy Daleks.
I think it's a case of never giving him any responsibility including
managing his own money or going out and earning a job on his own and
being responsible for all those adult things like
rent/utilities/food/entertainment.
His child like "mind" is the result of never having to grow up or being
held responsible for his actions.
.... but he does have a University Degree or something, doesn't he??
Daniel70
On 14/01/2025 12:32 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
On 11/01/2025 21:27, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 10/01/2025 22:42, Blueshirt wrote:
If you're not subscribed then you can't be called a
subscriber.
Just having an account with them means they can call you a
subscriber even if you are not paying them anything or even
watching anything. They're nothing more than a pack of
deceiving liars.
If you need to subscribe to obtain their service,
notifications, or show your support then you are a subscriber.
Yes, which for Disney+ means that you have to actually pay
something to them (a subscription fee) as there is no free
content!
Nope. Once you've registered then you count as a subscriber, including
if you're on a free 12 month subscription given away by your mobile
phone provider. Even if you never pay Disney anything every again they
still count you as a subscriber.
Hmm!! Isn't English a wonderful language .... where "subscriber" means
you don't have to pay a brass razzo!!
<Snip>
Plus, their figures would never go down, and Disney have
often said their subscription numbers declined in Q1 or Q3
etc... Much
Those are because people have deleted their accounts. They
still count you as a subscriber if your account is still
extant.
Hmm!! This would explain why I still get messages from some "Business"
mob telling me people are looking at my Profile .... even though I
closed the account many years ago!!
Based on people I've spoken to, IRL. People [generally] don't
delete their streaming accounts, they just stop paying when
they've had enough... or their trial offer has run out. As they
So they still count as subscribers for the statistics even when paying
nothing for nothing.
Lies .... Damned Lies .... and Statistics!!
<Snip>
Why would you expect a big corporation to show YOU their
accounts? Do you show your bank account to just anyone? However,
Why would they show them to the tax man then? You've just discredited
your previous paragraph.
their accounts would certainly need to be audited and tax
returns filed with the IRS, (etc.) Their accounts would not be a
No they wouldn't. The IRS doesn't audit your accounts. An independent
auditor does that for the benefit of shareholders so they don't get
ripped off.
WHAT?? "An independent auditor" does the figures ..... and your IRS just >accepts those figures!!
Sure they do!!
secret and their incomes from their various companies and
business units. (The Walt Disney Company own more than just
They're a secret to the public and to the tax man. Obviously someone in
the debt collecting department would know who is paying their bills, who
is not paying their bills, and who doesn't have to pay anything.
Disney+.) would be listed somewhere. Nobody can exist in a
financial vacuum, but there's no reason why YOU would need to
know about their income and expenditure.
There's no reason for the tax man to know it either. All you put on your
tax return is you profit deceleration for they year, and it doesn't even
have to be the actual profit you make in that year since you can carry
it over to the next year or even pass it back to the year before.
You're not even a Disney+ subscriber and "Doctor Who" being
Why would I want to watch kiddie programmes?
Don't you mean "kiddie-Fiddler programs", Aggy??
streamed on Disney+ overseas has no relevance whatsoever to you,
Doctor Who ended in 2017 so of course the crap that Disney+ streams is
of no relevance.
as you are in the UK. Yet you seem obsessively fixated over a
big company that doesn't interfere with your life... if I was
It has brought about the continued destruction of Doctor Who, therefore
it has interfered with my life.
How could it do that, Aggy, I mean to quote some informed individuals
"Doctor Who finished in 2017."!!
--
Daniel70
On 14/01/2025 12:32 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
On 11/01/2025 21:27, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 10/01/2025 22:42, Blueshirt wrote:
If you're not subscribed then you can't be called a
subscriber.
Just having an account with them means they can call you a
subscriber even if you are not paying them anything or even
watching anything. They're nothing more than a pack of
deceiving liars.
If you need to subscribe to obtain their service,
notifications, or show your support then you are a subscriber.
Yes, which for Disney+ means that you have to actually pay
something to them (a subscription fee) as there is no free
content!
Nope. Once you've registered then you count as a subscriber, including
if you're on a free 12 month subscription given away by your mobile
phone provider. Even if you never pay Disney anything every again they
still count you as a subscriber.
Hmm!! Isn't English a wonderful language .... where "subscriber" means
you don't have to pay a brass razzo!!
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders
app, you could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
On 2025-01-25 10:55:35 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 14/01/2025 12:32 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
On 11/01/2025 21:27, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 10/01/2025 22:42, Blueshirt wrote:
If you're not subscribed then you can't be called a
subscriber.
Just having an account with them means they can call you a
subscriber even if you are not paying them anything or even
watching anything. They're nothing more than a pack of
deceiving liars.
If you need to subscribe to obtain their service,
notifications, or show your support then you are a subscriber.
Yes, which for Disney+ means that you have to actually pay
something to them (a subscription fee) as there is no free
content!
Nope. Once you've registered then you count as a subscriber, including
if you're on a free 12 month subscription given away by your mobile
phone provider. Even if you never pay Disney anything every again they
still count you as a subscriber.
Hmm!! Isn't English a wonderful language .... where "subscriber" means
you don't have to pay a brass razzo!!
You can easily subscribe to lots of free things, such as email
newsletters, pod casts, etc.
You can subscribe for a free quarterly printed kids' Lego magazine
physically delivered to your house at <https://www.lego.com/magazine>
(only available in a few countries though).
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders app, you
could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
Your Name wrote:
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders
app, you could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
Causing some people to ask, why would any sane person subscribe
to RADW?! :-)
Your Name wrote:
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders
app, you could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
Causing some people to ask, why would any sane person subscribe
to RADW?! :-)
On 2025-01-25 21:53:30 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders
app, you could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
Causing some people to ask, why would any sane person subscribe
to RADW?! :-)
Maybe, but it's also why you occasionally get some novice posting a
message in a newsgroup simply saying "unsubscribe" ... as if that would
do anything. :-)
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vn3k1q$32ogg$1@dont-email.me>,who is this boner
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-25 10:55:35 +0000, Daniel70 said:
On 14/01/2025 12:32 pm, The True Doctor wrote:
On 11/01/2025 21:27, Blueshirt wrote:
The True Doctor wrote:
On 10/01/2025 22:42, Blueshirt wrote:
If you're not subscribed then you can't be called a
subscriber.
Just having an account with them means they can call you a
subscriber even if you are not paying them anything or even
watching anything. They're nothing more than a pack of
deceiving liars.
If you need to subscribe to obtain their service,
notifications, or show your support then you are a subscriber.
Yes, which for Disney+ means that you have to actually pay
something to them (a subscription fee) as there is no free
content!
Nope. Once you've registered then you count as a subscriber, including >>>>> if you're on a free 12 month subscription given away by your mobile
phone provider. Even if you never pay Disney anything every again they >>>>> still count you as a subscriber.
Hmm!! Isn't English a wonderful language .... where "subscriber" means >>>> you don't have to pay a brass razzo!!
You can easily subscribe to lots of free things, such as email
newsletters, pod casts, etc.
You can subscribe for a free quarterly printed kids' Lego magazine
physically delivered to your house at <https://www.lego.com/magazine>
(only available in a few countries though).
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders app, you
could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
whatever.
In article <-tOdnXO3YPVsEQj6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vn3k1q$32ogg$1@dont-email.me>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-25 10:55:35 +0000, Daniel70 said:
who is this bonerHmm!! Isn't English a wonderful language .... where
"subscriber" means you don't have to pay a brass razzo!!
You can easily subscribe to lots of free things, such as email
newsletters, pod casts, etc.
You can subscribe for a free quarterly printed kids' Lego
magazine physically delivered to your house at
<https://www.lego.com/magazine> (only available in a few
countries though).
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders
app, you could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
whatever.
YN?
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders app, you
could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
On 26/01/2025 2:10 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <-tOdnXO3YPVsEQj6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>, %
<pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vn3k1q$32ogg$1@dont-email.me>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-25 10:55:35 +0000, Daniel70 said:
<Snip>
TD??who is this bonerHmm!! Isn't English a wonderful language .... where
"subscriber" means you don't have to pay a brass razzo!!
You can easily subscribe to lots of free things, such as email
newsletters, pod casts, etc.
You can subscribe for a free quarterly printed kids' Lego
magazine physically delivered to your house at
<https://www.lego.com/magazine> (only available in a few
countries though).
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders
app, you could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
whatever.
YN?
--
Daniel70
On 26/01/2025 8:11 am, Your Name wrote:
<Snip>
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders app, you
could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
Oh!! O.K., shoot me down in flames, why don't you??
--
Daniel70
On 2025-01-25 21:53:30 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet
newsreaders app, you could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
Causing some people to ask, why would any sane person
subscribe to RADW?! :-)
Maybe, but it's also why you occasionally get some novice
posting a message in a newsgroup simply saying "unsubscribe"
... as if that would do anything. :-)
On 26/01/2025 8:11 am, Your Name wrote:
<Snip>
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders
app, you could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
Oh!! O.K., shoot me down in flames, why don't you??
Your Name wrote:
On 2025-01-25 21:53:30 +0000, Blueshirt said:
Your Name wrote:
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet
newsreaders app, you could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
Causing some people to ask, why would any sane person
subscribe to RADW?! :-)
Maybe, but it's also why you occasionally get some novice
posting a message in a newsgroup simply saying "unsubscribe"
... as if that would do anything. :-)
Any Usenet novice coming here would soon be thinking twice about
their choice! ;-)
RADW is an acquired taste...
Daniel70 wrote:
On 26/01/2025 8:11 am, Your Name wrote:
<Snip>
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders
app, you could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
Oh!! O.K., shoot me down in flames, why don't you??
At least he didn't shoot you down in flams!
:-)
In article <vn53d7$3lo2s$5@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 26/01/2025 2:10 pm, The Doctor wrote:
In article <-tOdnXO3YPVsEQj6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>, %
<pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
In article <vn3k1q$32ogg$1@dont-email.me>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-25 10:55:35 +0000, Daniel70 said:
<Snip>
TD??who is this bonerHmm!! Isn't English a wonderful language .... where
"subscriber" means you don't have to pay a brass razzo!!
You can easily subscribe to lots of free things, such as email
newsletters, pod casts, etc.
You can subscribe for a free quarterly printed kids' Lego
magazine physically delivered to your house at
<https://www.lego.com/magazine> (only available in a few
countries though).
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders
app, you could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
whatever.
YN?
I doubt you answered % correctly.
In article <vn5392$3lo2s$4@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 26/01/2025 8:11 am, Your Name wrote:
<Snip>
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders app, you
could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
Oh!! O.K., shoot me down in flames, why don't you??
Typical radw day.
On 26/01/2025 11:57 pm, The Doctor wrote:^^^^^<-Paedophile talker noted!
In article <vn5392$3lo2s$4@dont-email.me>,
Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
On 26/01/2025 8:11 am, Your Name wrote:
<Snip>
Depending on the terminology used by your Usenet newsreaders app, you
could be subscribed to this newsgroup.
Oh!! O.K., shoot me down in flames, why don't you??
Typical radw day.
You're still here, Binky, so YES!!
--
Daniel70
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 430 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 125:09:46 |
| Calls: | 9,060 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,398 |
| Messages: | 6,017,441 |
| Posted today: | 1 |