Hold on, in response to Stuart C's post where he claimed Sky were considering it in a guardian article, when in fact all it said was that other ISP's had been approaced, i said.
Quote:
|
That is a hell of a difference from "Sky are considering it" though (assuming that's what your edit refers too after Stuart C's comment.)
|
The you said:-
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mick
No it doesn't. But let's say they might consider it, that would be *another* reason for you to ditch them and then perhaps you can 'learn' with the rest of us can't you?, as you put it earlier.
|
The came my response in 251:-
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheBlueRaja
So your argument is that although Sky are not currently considering this (as far as we are aware), or traffic shaping etc that i should pretend they are so that i can dump them and move to somebody like, say, VM who are actually doing this and charging more for the privilege?
I've got to say, brilliant idea my man, truly brilliant.
|
Your response was completely nonsensical, i.e. assume they are considering it and dump sky so you know what it feels like? I mean, what?
Then you claim im "dreaming up assumptions and making up arguements where they don't exist."
Finally I get the threat of a ban because the debate doesn't go your way.
How is that a debate mate or for that matter, how is that even a mature discussion on your part?