Quote:
Originally Posted by homealone
Thanks for that considered & well informed opinion about the members of this forum - unfortunately, I, and others, seem to have forgotten the long association that contributed to your conclusion regarding our abilities...
I can recommend the ignore list, which I urge you to use for those of us who fail to reach your high standards...
|
Not sure I understand you. Looked around the various threads on this forum from which, it seems to me, the combined contributions of all are high and have helped me a great deal. This forum really shines compared to others.
---------- Post added at 15:23 ---------- Previous post was at 14:59 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk
Just a thought Mike but the last time David took on Goliath and won, a great multitude of people lost their champion. It is perhaps possible to lose by winning. I am not saying the cause is or is not just but the consequences might not be palatable or desirable.
|
That, Kursk, has been my greatest dilemma. Philosophically orientated, I took a while to consider the outcome for others, not just me. I was cajoled somewhat when I produced what is now the Act (post #44) on the same basis. After all the thoughts of potential consequences it came down to whether I would adversely affect my neighbour's son's enjoyment of Internet access (they suffer similarly). I concluded that it would enhance it because, although I have a case I am not David nor a crusader. I am simply the first to take the issue.
On the long march into hallowed walls of court, where I hope to state my case clearly enough to warrant a justified conclusion, if right is done there will be public debate and competent government intervention. It is their job to protect the interests of society, not mine.
Me? I paid too much for what I was legitimately entitled and could expect to receive. I want a proportion of that back. If that means the majority receive a proportion back, better Internet access due to less restrictions, and higher prices or restrictions to those greedy enough to negatively affect the majority, then so be it. There is a side issue too. VM have the infrastructure and branding to provide easily the best home ISP facilities in the UK. If it takes a firm boot in the behind to make them understand this then I am quite happy to provide both the boot and momentum to deliver it on target. To me, the matter is a t'uppence but to VM their positive change would be worth tens of millions if not a lot more.
Do remember, I am not alone. This will be a class action once defences are known. There is no leader and will be no loss of champion. "Just cause" actions are never good actions.