Stupid, greedy, moronic. - Page 4

carlwaring · 17-04-2012, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Oh how inconsistent you can be

Sorry but you're going to have to explain that one as I see nothing in the quotes that is "inconsistent"

GrimUpNorth · 17-04-2012, 14:16

OK Carl, I'll try and explain it in nice simple terms without the quotes so not to confuse you.

You started off by saying you take posts at face value and assume people mean what they say.

You then go on to say my reply was complete nonsense, and could be construed (to keep it simple that word means could be interpreted in a particular way) libellous.

Then when you're called on it you try and change from you have libelled me to an unidentified person/company might take exception. Oh and by the way as you love being Mr Pedantic you use the phrase "...may well decide to take it further if they decide that what you have posted is libellous", well the last time I looked it was for the courts to decide if libel has occured not the individual or entity, but hey Carl don't let accuracy get in the way of pompusness.

So to answer your last post I just pointed out that you change your tune to suit.

Simple enough?

Cheers

Grim

carlwaring · 17-04-2012, 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

OK Carl, I'll try and explain it in nice simple terms without the quotes so not to confuse you.

Nice condescending tone there

Quote:

You started off by saying you take posts at face value and assume people mean what they say.

Yes.

Quote:

You then go on to say my reply was complete nonsense, and could be construed (to keep it simple that word means could be interpreted in a particular way) libellous.

Yes. I do know what words mean, thanks

Quote:

Then when you're called on it you try and change from you have libelled me to an unidentified person/company might take exception.

I did not "change" anything. The title of the thread could be libellous; ie

Quote:

A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation

.. as could some comments on here about me. VM may decide to sue as they have a reputation to uphold. I couldn't care less about random comments from anonymous forum users so wouldn't even think of taking any such action.

So, no contradictions; no "changes"; no nothing. You just need to comprehend English.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Then when you're called on it you try and change from you have libelled me to an unidentified person/company might take exception. Oh and by the way as you love being Mr Pedantic you use the phrase "...may well decide to take it further if they decide that what you have posted is libellous", well the last time I looked it was for the courts to decide if libel has occured not the individual or entity, but hey Carl don't let accuracy get in the way of pompusness.

Oh please

Yes, of course it's "ultimately up to the courts to decide" but you don't think VM are going to have a team of their own lawyers to advise them on whether what was posted is libellous or not and that they have a good chance of winning? Or do you think they're just going to go to court on a whim?

Quote:

So to answer your last post I just pointed out that you change your tune to suit.

Simple enough?

Simple yes, but also entirely wrong. As usual, when you're posting about me, I might add

Itshim · 17-04-2012, 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlwaring

.. as could some comments on here about me. VM may decide to sue as they have a reputation to uphold. I couldn't care less about random comments from anonymous forum users.

No contradictions. No "changes. No nothing. You just need to comprehend English.

Pardon

carlwaring · 17-04-2012, 14:43

Which bit of my use of English confused you?

Itshim · 17-04-2012, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Which bit of my use of English confused you?

All of it

GrimUpNorth · 17-04-2012, 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Nice condescending tone there

Pleasure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlwaring

I did not "change" anything. The title of the thread could be libellous.

Except your comment regarding libellous statements was in response to my comments to you about your comments, so there you go changing your terms of reference again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlwaring

I couldn't care less about random comments from anonymous forum users so wouldn't even think of taking any such action.

Sure?

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlwaring

I couldn't care less about random comments from anonymous forum users so wouldn't even think of taking any such action.

Yes, we've already established how empty your comments can be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Oh please

Yes, of course it's "ultimately up to the courts to decide" but you don't think VM are going to have a team of their own lawyers to advise them on whether what was posted is libellous or not and that they have a good chance of winning? Or do you think they're just going to go to court on a whim?

I've left your bold in. I'll say it again as you still don't seem to understand. Only a court can say what is and is not libellous. All the legal advice any person or entity gets is just that - legal advice, nothing more and nothing less, and will always be until tested in court.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Simple yes, but also entirely wrong. As usual, when you're posting about me, I might add

Oh please

(got that line from you - and think I'll use it for a day or two). You're making me shake my head in disappointment as I often do when I meet pupils of the King Canute School of Logic.

Cheers

Grim

**Hugh** · 17-04-2012, 15:51

Back on topic, please....

ssr · 17-04-2012, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Back on topic, please....

Sigh of relief!

**Hugh** · 17-04-2012, 18:46

Which part of "Back on topic, please" was hard to understand?

If this nonsense keeps up, the Loving Mallet of Correction™will have to be unsheathed, and fracking will commence.

**Maggy** · 17-04-2012, 20:52

More off topic posts removed.The previous warning applies to EVERYONE.Keep to the topic.

General Maximus · 17-04-2012, 22:46

mine was on topic. I was supporting Hugh's love of Battlestar Galactica.

In the interests of fairness though I will pm you my views so I dont look like I am deliberately trying to wind people up.

kwikbreaks · 18-04-2012, 08:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Maximus

... dont look like I am deliberately trying to wind people up...

Surely that would be bang on topic judging by the posts I've read...

General Maximus · 18-04-2012, 09:44

i didnt want to be seen as singling people out and encouraging further arguing for the sake of a bit of drama. I just want the problem sorted.

Chrysalis · 18-04-2012, 12:30

check my graph in sig, today I had extra DS's added (dont know how many tho as on vmng300) and the US is on a diff channel id.

From what I understand based on info from ignition been posted is the planned DS capacity increase is double as from 4 channels to 8 channels. US increase he said would be bonded but he didnt state if that would be bonding existing channels (no increase) or adding new ones (probably doubled).

The bottom tier is tripled, middle tier doubled, top tier extra 20%.
However on capacity its not that simple as currently bottom tier customers are on docsis1, so its more than tripling as they coming as extra users who werent before on the docsis3 capacity.

So in short it looks like from where I sit the extra capacity is overall less than the extra speeds been sold and VM are trying to counter it by changing the traffic management, eg. adding STM on the top tier and looking at the comcast system.