comet how to complain about them

uktim29

HC wrote: »

Ignore LR's posts.

The sole point of my original post was in response to LR. Which? was not my concern, it could have been any magazine, but I was commenting on a post he made because I didn't belive it to be wholly true. The apparent expert opinion was blatantly a generalization due to the fact it contained no reference to any fact at all.

taxiphil

uktim29 wrote: »

Theres no mention of any actual research carried out, no figures eg 'we found that 50% of retailers' etc. If that statement had some quantitative information in it (that I thought Which? prided itself in) then I would view it differently. However that is just blatent statement from someone who is biased towards consumers.

Obviously the information in Lone Ranger's post is a very brief synopsis, probably taken from a media report about the Which article. The original, unabridged Which article does contain the quantitative information you are bemoaning the absence of.

So how can you possibly discredit what the market expert said, when you don't even know who this market expert was, and haven't seen the quote in its full context, because you haven't read the original article?

Perhaps consider the possibility that this market expert might have spent years conducting a scientific study and written a 7000 page objective report on the subject, before you discredit him as some kind of fraud or charlatan, based on one single sentence reported in the media.

uktim29 wrote: »

The sole point of my original post was in response to LR. Which? was not my concern

But your allegations of deliberately distorting investigation results and not doing any research were specifically levelled at Which magazine, not at Lone Ranger.

You're just digging yourself into a big silly hole by trying to obfuscate and backpedal on what you earlier said. Why not just admit that your allegation that Which magazine "probably haven't done any research at all" was entirely misconceived? It's an indefensible statement - admit it!

HC_2

What a beautifully articulated, reasoned post.

uktim29

taxiphil wrote: »

The original, unabridged Which article does contain the quantitative information you are bemoaning the absence of

Seeing you know this Phil. I'm very surprised you haven't written what it is!

taxiphil wrote: »

But your allegations of deliberately distorting investigation results and not doing any research were specifically levelled at Which magazine, not at Lone Ranger

All my posts prior to when you butted in were directed at Lone Ranger and his views. My post you refer to was specifically commenting on what LR had written, I couldn't care if he got it from the Teletubbies magazine. You've a habit at looking at something I've written and twisting it into something else to suit an argument you're creating just to dispute something I've written.

I've given my reason above why I think this 'expert' is biased, you've written nothing since to prove otherwise hence your lack of information about it. Your apparent 7000 page report contains no information I requested. That isn't the point though, my post refereed to the amount of information LR gave. His quote was that of someone biased as I've written. If it's really like you say then why don't you print it because I haven't seen it yet. All I've seen is LR's version which is why I stand by my posts being in response to LR.

I don't know if you thought about this but your quiz doesn't support your argument. You've listed 8 changes in the law that favor the consumer. Doesn't that suggest to you that the organization recommending these things may have some members who are indeed biased towards the consumer!

If you keep wanting to change what I've actually written into something you just want to argue about then it is you who will keep digging yourself into a big silly hole!

THE_LONE_RANGER_4

basically im wright the above is wrong .

Bamber19

Orville or Wilbur?

Surely this very board is evidence that the British exaggerate, and create from nowhere, poor customer service experiences. On most given days there are plenty of threads where customers go in shouting and making ridiculous accusations and are then surprised when they don't get a smile. Even when the store sorts the problem out perfectly people still find something to complain about.

uktim29

Bamber19 wrote: »

Orville or Wilbur?

Surely this very board is evidence that the British exaggerate, and create from nowhere, poor customer service experiences. On most given days there are plenty of threads where customers go in shouting and making ridiculous accusations and are then surprised when they don't get a smile. Even when the store sorts the problem out perfectly people still find something to complain about.

Exactly!!!

HC_2

And we were only a short time ago discussing ridiculous, sweeping generalisations...

How you infer these things from the rants of a few dozen posters a week is, to me, unfathomable.

Clearly you both require only minimum 'evidence' to arrive at such confident conclusions.

If you think that the Vent Board mirrors British society you both need to get out more.

uktim29

THE_LONE_RANGER wrote: »

basically im wright the above is wrong .

No I take it you get that idea from Taxiphils posts?

Now did Taxiphil post to agree with you, or did he post to disagree with me? You'll find the answer in his sig!

HC wrote: »

And we were only a short time ago discussing ridiculous, sweeping generalisations...

How you infer these things from the rants of a few dozen posters a week is, to me, unfathomable.

Clearly you both require only minimum 'evidence' to arrive at such confident conclusions.

If you think that the Vent Board mirrors British society you both need to get out more.

Theres you complaining about our posts!

HC_2

uktim29 wrote: »

Theres you complaining about our posts!

And there was me thinking you'd had a sense of humour bypass.

My, my. How we live and learn. :rotfl: