thoreau wrote:
It makes my skin crawl that there is the expectation that just because someone is wealthy and may have shown an interest in 'alternatives' that there is an expectation they should cough up.
There is a very simple rule of business and that is to either fill a needed gap in the market or create a demand for your product.
There was not a gap that needed filling imho
TPV are not successfully creating the demand for their product - this is for many reasons but primarily because they are so far, not doing what they said on the tin, there is no sense of starting at a grass roots level and earning their way up, a total lack of transparency and the programmes themselves do not appeal enough to their core demographic.
looking to some celebrity to use as a cash cow is disgusting.
Looking brands campaign to help those with addiction I can see that it could actually change lives, comic relief managing it aside it will offer something tangible to those in need.
What does tpv offer that will change my life? an opportunity to sit back infront of the tv and passively soak up the information that icke thinks i 'need' to know? I threw out my tv years ago and my life has improved no end - I don't wish to go back to staring at a screen watching propaganda no matter what side of the fence its in aid of.
In my opinion and I think it a reasonable one.....
Ken O'keefe Max Igan can be sourced on the internet, we don't need TPV to provide them, are the punters expected to cough up to provide viewing for the ignorant.
I can watch many presentations of Max Ken without needing to go to TPV.
So it appears that TPV is to provide access to the unenlightened, but the unenlightened don't want to pay for this, neither do the enlightened as they can source the information for free elsewhere....
So who is paying and why ?
The more it's considered the more it's seen as ridiculous, it's trying to rival Sky BBC etc..... Are people being expected to fund DI's beef with MSM because they laughed at him on the Wogan show?