Cable Forum - View Single Post - Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

smcicr · 20-06-2008, 11:19

Wow - I take it all back - I'm completely convinced - there was nearly an actual answer in that lot.

I am very much enjoying:

"BECAUSE NO-ONE HAS PROVED THAT IT IS NOT" - not only is that the sort of thing i'd be disappointed in if i heard it on a playground but it ignores the fact that several people have done exactly that. It's a 'twofor' - embarrasingly constructed AND incorrect. Bargain.

"THESE ARE ORGANISATIONS WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO SAY NO TO EVERYTHING, SO OF COURSE THEY WILL BE ANTI-EVERYTHING, THE LUDDITES." - and you expect to be taken seriously because?

"BECAUSE THEY ARE WIMPS WHO WILL SOON ADOPT ONCE THE DOSH ROLLS IN TO BT ETC." - i know, i know - it's the same point as above but it's such a big point that i felt it was worth making twice...

oh and it also happens to lead nicely into...

"THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DO WHAT THEY WANT - THE TECH IS EVOLVING" - of course they are, what confuses me is why they would willingly choose to dramatically reduce the potential amount of 'DOSH' they will be receiving by making these changes - unless of course there is something inherently problematic with the way that the system was originally set up. Which, as someone in a wheel will hopefully appreciate, brings us back in a nice big circle to the whole legality issue...

"THAT WILL BE COMMERCIALLY CONFIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, PRIVATE !" - the irony has not escaped me (whether you intended it or not) but I'm presuming this is a guess on your part - why would they keep something like that back? it simply doesn't make sense - all Phorm's legal problems can be solved by publishing the legal advice they got and they refuse to do so? Sorry, doesn't track. At all.

I'd go through the rest of your points but it's not really serving any purpose to do so.

20-06-2008, 11:19	#9573
smcicr Inactive Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 12	Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797] Wow - I take it all back - I'm completely convinced - there was nearly an actual answer in that lot. I am very much enjoying: "BECAUSE NO-ONE HAS PROVED THAT IT IS NOT" - not only is that the sort of thing i'd be disappointed in if i heard it on a playground but it ignores the fact that several people have done exactly that. It's a 'twofor' - embarrasingly constructed AND incorrect. Bargain. "THESE ARE ORGANISATIONS WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO SAY NO TO EVERYTHING, SO OF COURSE THEY WILL BE ANTI-EVERYTHING, THE LUDDITES." - and you expect to be taken seriously because? "BECAUSE THEY ARE WIMPS WHO WILL SOON ADOPT ONCE THE DOSH ROLLS IN TO BT ETC." - i know, i know - it's the same point as above but it's such a big point that i felt it was worth making twice... oh and it also happens to lead nicely into... "THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DO WHAT THEY WANT - THE TECH IS EVOLVING" - of course they are, what confuses me is why they would willingly choose to dramatically reduce the potential amount of 'DOSH' they will be receiving by making these changes - unless of course there is something inherently problematic with the way that the system was originally set up. Which, as someone in a wheel will hopefully appreciate, brings us back in a nice big circle to the whole legality issue... "THAT WILL BE COMMERCIALLY CONFIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, PRIVATE !" - the irony has not escaped me (whether you intended it or not) but I'm presuming this is a guess on your part - why would they keep something like that back? it simply doesn't make sense - all Phorm's legal problems can be solved by publishing the legal advice they got and they refuse to do so? Sorry, doesn't track. At all. I'd go through the rest of your points but it's not really serving any purpose to do so.