some do need to indeed !!!!! :rolleyes:

I thought we were doing well. A debate on interpretation of text and advertising law. At least it hasn't degraded into a conversation about sexuallity or Avil Lavenge.... whatever.

Indeed ... and from my point of view that's exactly what this is. An interesting (and very lively) discussion about a real live legal issue. No handbags, not a personal slanging match, and no Bovril Latrine.

I trust those I've been engaged with in this thread have taken my comments in that way - I certainly haven't been taking anything anyone has said to me personally.

PS

Timewarrior - this is my first time on the forum since you posted your sad news. I think you gathered my last post on topic was penned having not read what you had put. I'd have backed off and left our discussion for a more appropriate time otherwise. :( Sorry things have turned bad for you all.

Sorry to hear that. I will be thinking of you..

i expected better from you :nono: :nono: :nono:

and there we go turns in to a jibe match now


it just seems some people are consumed in there time on this particular topic or should i say NTL ?

its no big deal really i cant understand why people want to screw NTL i mean its a bit sad really IMO

they have not made a mistake in my opinion they stated what they think is a fact about the amount of movies downloaded per day also mentioned in the article that they are available not commenting on how to get them they are not inciting to cause copyright infringment

the only reason they should have action taken against them is the reference to being able to download movies which im sure the movie studios would be less then impressed with

You started it :D

For those who don't know the argument is being continued on the site that must not be named
http://www.nthellworld.com/forum/sho...ewpost&t=46252

How/Why did it switch ?

I imagine the death of Timewarriors cousin affected the debators emotionally.

That and a thread was started on .com and hasn't stopped.

To please the "pro Ntl" lot

*did I say that? Oops

Just looked at .com for the first time in weeks. I hate the new colour scheme!

I don't think I'll be moving over there to continue this, as much of the discussion is along the same lines. It was interesting to sample some of the bizarre views not expressed in this forum though, usually from the usual suspects of the 'defend the indefensible' brigade.

After close to 400 posts in this thread I'm not certain there's much new ground to cover here, although as usual I'm happy to be proved wrong. I'm planning to post anything I hear from the ASA here.

KRONAS - Just a wee joke, I actually think B...eerrr...Avril's quite a good singer ... ;) :D

I know its :notopic: but have you noticed their new "reputation" system? Very strange!! Shame Craig's already hacked his so its perfect.:rolleyes:

I see that,on .com,everyone is repeating what they said in this thread. :zzz: I won't post on there as a matter of principle.

As customers of NTL,any fine that they receive as a result of this advertising error will be paid for by Us.So,maybe we have shot ourselves in the foot.

Perhaps,we should have contacted NTL & pointed out the implication of their advertisement.:) NTL & customers working together. :)
Dream on!
Since when have NTL listened to it's customers?

Craig's has gone back down to 1...

I think this latest violation - if that's what the ASA decides it is, and personally I think they will - is only the latest in a long line of wrist-slapping. Ntl gets fined so regularly I expect they budget for it, so the effect on our subscriptions should be negligible. I tend to think that in the long run, the effect of them getting a fine will be a positive one. Eventually some bright spark is going to say, "d'uuuhhh ... if we stop publishing screwey adverts, we won't get into trouble...".

Well, I can be optimistic, can't I? :spin:

Exactly!
Altough,in fairness to NTL,they are telling the truth in this advert;)