🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:44:35 +1000, David Clayton wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:11:02 +0000, terryc wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:20:44 +1000, B J Foster wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> Sorry, make that 8,000,000 non-dial-up. Still makes the 1M dial-up
>>>> the "small percentage" and that quantity has no doubt has dropped
>>>> even further since 12/09.
>> 
>> So your view of democracy is fsck the minority?
> 
> The claim was that the MAJORITY used modems and could not use on-line
> directories, which is patently false.

Umm, who wrote that? 
> 
> If you want a 20th century way of looking up phone numbers don't expect
> the rest of us who have moved on to continue to subsidise your wasteful
> habits.

Perhaps we should apply the same view to motor cars as a 20th Century way 
of personal transport.

Nor has it been demonstrated that the majority could use online 
directories. One needs both a reliable, fast broadband service and a 
recent computer to do so.  Otherwise, printed directories are faster and 
probably far more reliable.

> 
> My view of "democracy" is that people shouldn't be held back by (or pay
> for) those that has some bizarre sense of entitlement that because
> something once was it should remain so forever.

So the rich should rule?
> 
> This country is full of those who just whinge about any change, no
> matter how trivial or bogus the objections are - just recall the
> whingeing and outcry when we ALL moved to 8 digit phone numbers, wow the
> sky really fell in then to.....

I don't actually recall any of that.  Having moved from 6 to 8 to 10 in 
my life time, it was inconsequential. Perhaps it was just another media 
beat up.