Overcharged at the pub

uktim29

Bamber19 wrote: »

yet ignoring the fact Wig has sued the "TS told me" card aswell.

And Wigs other cards in this thread.

He had a go saying I'm making an assumption

Wig wrote: »

think you might be assuming someone complained to Tesco first about the misleading price on wines. Nowhere does it say that Tesco were challenged by a customer and chose to ignore the customer who then complained to TS. You're assuming stuff that is not there again

When I then challenged this he decided to win his argument with an assumption!

Wig wrote: »

Actually there's only one assumption in my post (not plural).

Which is interesting he decides I'm wrong using plural despite starting the post I'd referred to with the word either??????????

Wig wrote: »

Either a TS officer was shopping in Tesco (it does happen) visiting Tesco, or had recieved a complaint from a customer, you know, like the complaint I was advocating the OP to do in #32. The sort of complaint you think TS don't want to hear. This case kinda refutes your assumption doesn't it.

Wig is just obsessed with being right and more so having the last word, which we'll no doubt see by the end of the day!

Wig

Bamber19 wrote: »

Your picking at uktim for saying TS told him something and he's relied upon this yet ignoring the fact Wig has used the "TS told me" card aswell"

Did I? I honestly can't remember saying that.

The reason I argue with Tim is because he criticised me for saying
1. "misleading prices are illegal" and
2. "that by not removing the misleading price SEL (time taken 3 minutes) Tescos were ignoring their legal duty to do so" Or words to that effect. UkTim said both statements were untrue and took a high horse position.

I have shown that both statements are true, and now we have UkTim (even though he has not yet openly acknowledged No 2, is undeniable) putting qualifiers into his posts such as these, which are miles away from his position at the beginning of all this.

uktim wrote:

An incorrect price that gets changed would not be in my opinion

uktim wrote:

I think that also if the label was incorrect and was corrected to the till price which it more than likely has been Trading Standards wouldn't view that as wrong.

Uktim likes to subtly change his argument when he realises he is wrong but he won't admit he was wrong.

He likes to accuse others of saying things "as if fact with no backup", but when it comes down to it he has admitted in this thread he also was just spouting his opinion as though it were fact with no backup. The difference is, when he asked me to back up my arguement, I did so successfully. Whereas he is unable to prove his little "A mistake?/we'll correct that now" = No crime commited, theory. As I and Phil have told him (In our opinions) the crime is absolute - like speedlimits on roads - the action taken by TS is likely, however, to be proportionate. This does not mean "No court cases = no crime commited."

Wig

uktim29 wrote: »

Which is interesting he decides I'm wrong using plural despite starting the post I'd referred to with the word either??????????

There is a difference between a list of possible reasons for an action to have happened, and an assumption that a single reason was the cause. I can't beleive you are arguing that you were correct to say assumptions.

uktim29

Wig wrote: »

Uktim likes to subtly change his argument when he realises he is wrong but he won't admit he was wrong

Well I think my post above and your response proves you however get desperate and bury your head in the sand when your wrong, whilst trying to correct others in a way which would be the perfect definition of "scraping the barrel". Your blind to your own fault, you can't see through your own ego, hence the next desperate comment to prove your right your bound to write below.

Wig

Maybe, I smile to myself when I type things like "you're assuming stuff that's not there again" I know it winds you up because you know it's true. I also use it to let you know what it's like to be accused of something by a hypocrit because of course I assume things in my argument."

It all comes back to the original argument you had with me, you said, I was wrong, and asked for me to back it up (which I did, mostly) , but you, in trying to attack my words stated things which were wrong and you refuse to back yourself up. What's worse with you is that you know you were wrong, but won't admit it.

A trait you have obviously held for a very long time, because you exhibited the same trait in that "restaurant bill" thread a year or so ago.