Oh dear someone's in trouble - Page 2

**Chris** · 02-04-2007, 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul H

So is the letter sent out to everyone meant to be misleading?
If I read it like that, he and she reads it like that, they read it like that. Then that is how it's meant to be read. It's meant to be misleading.

Your logic is faulty. You, he and she are not the sole arbiters of what the author intended. The author is entitled to have a say as well and I doubt very much they would say that is what they meant. With justification too. What possible reason could they have to be deliberately misleading in such an obvious fashion that they're bound to get found out?

I suspect in this case it's just a sloppy, badly-worded piece of work by VM's marketing dept. It wouldn't be the first time.

Paul H · 02-04-2007, 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Your logic is faulty. You, he and she are not the sole arbiters of what the author intended. The author is entitled to have a say as well and I doubt very much they would say that is what they meant. With justification too. What possible reason could they have to be deliberately misleading in such an obvious fashion that they're bound to get found out?

I suspect in this case it's just a sloppy, badly-worded piece of work by VM's marketing dept. It wouldn't be the first time.

Response from the author Steve Stewart Managing Director, Customer Care who signed the letter.

Quote:

Thank you for your recent communication.Your interpretation of Talk
Unlimited is correct and includes unlimited calls to 01 & 02 telephone
numbers.

These are the calls we referred to when we mentioned calls outside your call
plan.

All other calls are charged at our standard rates. The letter did not
change the terms and conditions for your call plan.

That makes it ok then.
Is he going to send out a less confusing letter now as that one has caused confusion as to what it means?
No, best to keep it sloppy and badly worded as normal.

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:18 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Your logic is faulty. You, he and she are not the sole arbiters of what the author intended.

Are you saying that those who have received the letter, and those that question the letter, are not the ones who should judge what the letter means?
Who should be the one to judge what the letter means?
And you say my logic is faulty?

**Chris** · 02-04-2007, 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul H

Are you saying that those who have received the letter, and those that question the letter, are not the ones who should judge what the letter means?
Who should be the one to judge what the letter means?
And you say my logic is faulty?

I very much appreciate the fact that you agree with me. It's very noble of you to admit you were wrong in such a public fashion.

Paul H · 02-04-2007, 17:00

Stuart · 02-04-2007, 17:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

I suspect in this case it's just a sloppy, badly-worded piece of work by VM's marketing dept. It wouldn't be the first time.

Indeed. This would probably be much the same Marketing Dept who proudly wrote to all ex-videotron customers in London announcing they could get broadband some three years before they could.

Anyhow, Virgin probably have some sort of get out clause on this..

**Chris** · 02-04-2007, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul H

I love the way you use irony to demonstrate that you agree with my point.

Paul H · 02-04-2007, 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

I love the way you use irony to demonstrate that you agree with my point.

I'll make use of the smilies to better express what I mean.

<removed>

**Chris** · 02-04-2007, 19:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul H

I'll make use of the smilies to better express what I mean.

But I know what you mean. You're using wit and irony to say that you agree with me, and you are wrong. Your meaning is abundantly clear to me.

Paul H · 02-04-2007, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

But I know what you mean. You're using wit and irony to say that you agree with me, and you are wrong. Your meaning is abundantly clear to me.

You don't fool me.
You're trying to get me to use one of them smilies again, aren't you

**Chris** · 02-04-2007, 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul H

You don't fool me.
You're trying to get me to use one of them smilies again, aren't you

No, I'm trying to get you to see how ridiculous it is to suggest that someone reading a statement has more right to interpret it than the person who made the statement.

You say one thing, I take it to mean something else, I insist that I am right and you are wrong, you get completely P***ed off.

Geddit?

Happy Easter by the way.

Paul H · 02-04-2007, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

No, I'm trying to get you to see how ridiculous it is to suggest that someone reading a statement has more right to interpret it than the person who made the statement.

You say one thing, I take it to mean something else, I insist that I am right and you are wrong, you get completely P***ed off.

Geddit?

Happy Easter by the way.

The person reading the statement interpret's it the way it reads.
To say that the only person who knows what it means is the person who wrote it, is just plain crazy. Especially when there's quite a few in the virginmedia feedback group querying what it's supposed to mean.

Geddit?
Good.

Oh and I'm not p***ed of at all. It takes a lot to get me p***ed off.

And

Paul H · 03-04-2007, 23:05

Virgins legal people are now looking at this

awibble · 04-04-2007, 07:48

Haven't had this letter... dont suppose someone wants to scan it in.

If it says what you have said it says, it sounds like false advertising

Paul H · 04-04-2007, 09:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by awibble

Haven't had this letter... dont suppose someone wants to scan it in.

If it says what you have said it says, it sounds like false advertising

http://img177.imageshack.us/my.php?image=virginhj8.jpg

04-04-2007, 16:24

I would run up a massive bill courtesy of richard then argue it out in court clutching the promotional leaflet.

---------- Post added at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 16:14 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Your logic is faulty. You, he and she are not the sole arbiters of what the author intended. The author is entitled to have a say as well and I doubt very much they would say that is what they meant. With justification too. What possible reason could they have to be deliberately misleading in such an obvious fashion that they're bound to get found out?

I suspect in this case it's just a sloppy, badly-worded piece of work by VM's marketing dept. It wouldn't be the first time.

But none the less it is official?
It is from VM?
" all calls outside the plan "
ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£2000 phone bill and counting

---------- Post added at 16:20 ---------- Previous post was at 16:17 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Indeed. This would probably be much the same Marketing Dept who proudly wrote to all ex-videotron customers in London announcing they could get broadband some three years before they could.

Anyhow, Virgin probably have some sort of get out clause on this..

And like the adverts in the press offering customers the ability to download as many music tracks as they like unlike sky as vm put it.
Somewhere along the line the asa has to take a look at vm's dodgy tactics.

---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:20 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul H

http://img177.imageshack.us/my.php?image=virginhj8.jpg

Just read that, I can somehow see a mr stewart in queue 1 of the dole queue in the morning