Utility Warehouse (Telecom Plus) Discussion

espresso

NigeWick wrote: »

Your points are basically the same as your abuse, not really worthy.

Your pathetic repeated every page statement is a lie, because you could save much more money by not getting your gas and electricity from UW. This has been pointed out to you many times but you still trot out the same old worthless crap time after time.

NigeWick wrote: »

Drawing us back to money saving, I pay less to Utility Warehouse for my utilities than I would to any other company or combination of companies by doing my normal shopping at places I always have and using the pre payment card to good effect.

You said this long before the cashback card was introduced, so yet more lies!

NigeWick

espresso wrote: »

worthless crap

One person's worthless crap is another person's good deal. I do not berate you because of where you choose to spend your money so why not pay me the same courtesy.

I am an independent distributor with Utility Warehouse and the views I express may not be shared by the company.

Cardew

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

. If someone did what you say by copying articles from Which? reports then i'm sure Which? would come down on them like a ton of bricks if they found out. Surely you can't be extolling plagiarism?

A viable defence against the allegation of copyright violation is 'fair use', which means short pieces of work can be quoted for the purpose of critique. That does not mean whole pages can be copied and used as your own work. Nor is it a viable defence if pieces of work are quoted out of context to attempt to discredit the original writer or copyright owner. This is deception, and is another avenue for copyright infringement to be claimed. Quentin's quoting from another private site, in a way as to isolate a particular comment from it's context, without the ability of the reader to check that context is deception, and would be a viable avenue to claim breach of copyright.

Before you ask, copyright of course applies equally to Which? reports and anyone else, for or against, or neutral to UW, quoting anything from any other source on here. As has already been said, 'fair use' is fine, but should include a salutation/link back to the original article so the reader can ascertain the context. If this is a Which? report, the issue/page no. should allow the reader to check it for themselves. If the link cannot be left because the site it was quoted from is private, then the quote should not be made.

You are right not to go anywhere near public interest because in practice unless you are a journalist writing for a newspaper then it doesn't really apply. If you choose to do it, without liability insurance and the backing of a large employer you are on very dodgy ground indeed if someone asks you to prove what you've written and you can't.

In your desire to defend all things UW you show so much bias to negate any value of your post.

By far and away the biggest breach of copyright on this thread is the constant quoting - or rather mis-quoting of the WHICH survey.

In fact not just misquoting, but downright lies about Best Buy awards - 'exaustive testing of gas and electricity suppliers' 'WHICH recommends UW etc'

That draws not a word of criticism for you. Yet we have this quasi legal rubbish spouted about Quentin's verbatim quote from a website advertising to the general public.

kippen_noedel

kippen_noedel wrote: »

You're too cynical Cardew

Of course all those upright UW Salespeople will respond as soon as they see the question with clearly understood clarification of the rules.

Seems you were right Cardew, I am totally disappointed that the sales force cant at least attempt to answer either of the questions fully and with clarity.

In short it seems UW is a good deal if you are distributor & don't use more than the average energy consumption and spend more than £10000pa on their cash back card.

I have sadly come to the conclusion that Carmine is probably one of the saleforce

NigeWick

espresso wrote: »

Because you only post on this thread

Incorrect. I have posted on other threads. As this thread is dedicated to Utility Warehouse I feel free to extoll its virtues or criticise the company as I see fit. As has been pointed out by Quentin (I wonder why he does not post a link to his card) I once had the hump over the way I was dealt with. As it turned out, I ended up being satisfied with the outcome of that incident and have had satisfactory service ever since.

I am an independent distributor with Utility Warehouse and the views I express may not be shared by the company.

NigeWick

Cardew wrote: »

In your desire to defend all things UW you show so much bias to negate any value of your post.

I am sure that uptomyeyeballs is just as unbiased as you when you complain about all things UW.

Quentin

NigeWick wrote: »

I once had the hump over the way I was dealt with. As it turned out, I ended up being satisfied with the outcome of that incident and have had satisfactory service ever since.

After it being pointed out that your post here praising the service you have always had from uw cs, that you paint an entirely different picture when discussing the service with other uw reps, where you actually posted about your experiences with uw cs that you had experienced "some fairly atrocious ones", you now cynically attempt to tell us here that in fact you only ever had this "once"!

Wonder why you didn't make that clear when discussing it with the uw reps. (And if "once" were true, why even post about it at all (especially in a uw forum, where negativity is frowned upon)?

Anyone else see the difference between "once" and "some"!

NigeWick

Quentin wrote: »

Anyone else see the difference between "once" and "some"!

Would that be like never once seeing a link to your Utility Warehouse pre payment card beating cashback card? You lovable old bigot you.

Quentin

No remorse over the exposure of your deceitful post attempting to tell us here you had just experienced one "atrocious" encounter with uw cs? (When you happily castigate them for your multiple atrocious experiences when discussing this amongst other uw reps)

kippen_noedel

uptomyeyeballs wrote: »

Around half of the consumption values will be below the average (by definition).
Strange how that cash back figure keeps going up. It was £6,000 last time I took time to read of such.

I only used that figure because Carmine gets £500 back on his card.

as for averages, its all done to what type of average you use 65% of people don't even have a disposable income of £6000pa (Office of National Statistics)