I had a phone call from Trading Standards this morning and they think that 
Currys' pricing is misleading in this case, especially as they, Currys, 
contradicted themselves in correspondence with me.

T.S. are looking into it further but they did say that not every case is 
acted upon; they are sometimes filed for possible action in the future. 
Perhaps this happens when a sufficient number of people have complained?

Good enough, I suppose, and it goes a long way to explaining why Currys etc. 
don't much care what consumer law says, especially when it comes to 
"warranties".

Si

"Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot"  wrote in message 
news:NuWdnZ2dnZ3L12WfnZ2dnch4k96dnZ2dRVnyqZ2dnZ0@pipex.net...

>I had a phone call from Trading Standards this morning and they think that 
>Currys' pricing is misleading in this case, especially as they, Currys, 
>contradicted themselves in correspondence with me.
>
> T.S. are looking into it further but they did say that not every case is 
> acted upon; they are sometimes filed for possible action in the future. 
> Perhaps this happens when a sufficient number of people have complained?
>
> Good enough, I suppose, and it goes a long way to explaining why Currys 
> etc. don't much care what consumer law says, especially when it comes to 
> "warranties".
>
> Si



I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?. I have no idea what 
youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.
 Is there someone at school you can talk to about it?

"Mike"  wrote in message
news:430eee00$0$22925$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...

>
> "Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot"  wrote in message
> news:NuWdnZ2dnZ3L12WfnZ2dnch4k96dnZ2dRVnyqZ2dnZ0@pipex.net...
> >I had a phone call from Trading Standards this morning and they think
that
> >Currys' pricing is misleading in this case, especially as they, Currys,
> >contradicted themselves in correspondence with me.
> >
> > T.S. are looking into it further but they did say that not every case is
> > acted upon; they are sometimes filed for possible action in the future.
> > Perhaps this happens when a sufficient number of people have complained?
> >
> > Good enough, I suppose, and it goes a long way to explaining why Currys
> > etc. don't much care what consumer law says, especially when it comes to
> > "warranties".
> >
> > Si
>
>
> I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?. I have no idea what
> youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.
>  Is there someone at school you can talk to about it?


If you have no idea who he is talking to then it has got nothing to do with
you. Run along now.

You are only jealous he can speak to someone at school when you can't get
closer than 100yards due to the court injunction you have.

Mike wrote:

: I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?. I have no idea
: what youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.
: Is there someone at school you can talk to about it?

You click on the post, you sort by 'From' and then you find the 
original post and read that, or you could go along to Google Groups 
and find it in there!

-- 
RiTSo

Mike  wrote:

>I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?. I have no idea what
>youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.


His title gives you some clue as to what he is referring.  Why don't you 
try reading the other posts in the group before making yourself look 
stupid?

-- 
Emma - The Chocolate Monster
http://www.chocmonster.rules.it
http://www.altgallery.shows.it
http://speeding.to/maevanwijk

Mike wrote:

> "Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot"  wrote in message
> news:NuWdnZ2dnZ3L12WfnZ2dnch4k96dnZ2dRVnyqZ2dnZ0@pipex.net...
>> I had a phone call from Trading Standards this morning and they
>> think that Currys' pricing is misleading in this case, especially as
>> they, Currys, contradicted themselves in correspondence with me.
>>
>> T.S. are looking into it further but they did say that not every
>> case is acted upon; they are sometimes filed for possible action in
>> the future. Perhaps this happens when a sufficient number of people
>> have complained?
>>
>> Good enough, I suppose, and it goes a long way to explaining why
>> Currys etc. don't much care what consumer law says, especially when
>> it comes to "warranties".
>>
>> Si
>
>
> I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?. I have no idea
> what youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.
>  Is there someone at school you can talk to about it?


Funny - a lot of people here know who he's talking too.....

"Emma"  wrote in message
news:3KdDifQ1MvDDFAok@excalvehs.demon.co.uk...

> Mike  wrote:
> >I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?. I have no idea what
> >youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.
>
> His title gives you some clue as to what he is referring.


It gives bugger all clue.


> Why don't you
> try reading the other posts in the group before making yourself look
> stupid?


And how did Mike make himself look stupid?  In case you hadn't realised
Usenet is a public forum - to start a post with "in this case" without even
referring to what he was talking about is pretty stupid.

I had no idea what the OP was referring to either - for all I know, what he
was talking about could be buried deep in another thread.

Michael Cargill wrote:

:: His title gives you some clue as to what he is referring.
:
: It gives bugger all clue.

: I had no idea what the OP was referring to either - for all I know,
: what he was talking about could be buried deep in another thread.

It is buried deep in another thread, coincidentally titled 'Bloody 
Currys' posted in this NG by the same OP, I think there were enough 
clues there!

-- 
RiTSo

Michael Cargill  wrote:

>"Emma"  wrote in message
>> Mike  wrote:
>> >I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?. I have no idea what
>> >youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.
>> His title gives you some clue as to what he is referring.
>It gives bugger all clue.


'Further to Bloody Currys' - to me it's obvious he's talking about the 
thread which he also started a few days ago entitled 'Bloody Currys!!!'.

The original thread has the most replies of any currently on this group 
so it is quite easy to find and follow.

-- 
Emma - The Chocolate Monster
http://www.chocmonster.rules.it
http://www.altgallery.shows.it
http://speeding.to/maevanwijk

Mike wrote:

>
> I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?


I'm talking to the people who were following my original post "Bloody 
Currys". Anybody else can do their own research if they're bothered enough.


>I have no idea
> what youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.

DILLIGAF?

> Is there someone at school you can talk to about it?


Heh. I love this sort of poster.

Si

"RiTSo"  wrote in message 
news:TBDPe.96563$G8.50532@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Michael Cargill wrote:
>
> :: His title gives you some clue as to what he is referring.
> :
> : It gives bugger all clue.
>
> : I had no idea what the OP was referring to either - for all I know,
> : what he was talking about could be buried deep in another thread.
>
> It is buried deep in another thread, coincidentally titled 'Bloody
> Currys' posted in this NG by the same OP, I think there were enough
> clues there!
>
> -- 
> RiTSo



so why did the OP not post in that thread?!!

Mike  wrote:

>> Funny - a lot of people here know who he's talking too.....
>who?.


The ones who read his other thread about Currys.

-- 
Emma - The Chocolate Monster
http://www.chocmonster.rules.it
http://www.altgallery.shows.it
http://speeding.to/maevanwijk

Mike wrote:

> " cupra"  wrote in message
> news:3n8ap7Fa0fsU1@individual.net...
>> Mike wrote:
>>> "Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot"  wrote in message
>>> news:NuWdnZ2dnZ3L12WfnZ2dnch4k96dnZ2dRVnyqZ2dnZ0@pipex.net...
>>>> I had a phone call from Trading Standards this morning and they
>>>> think that Currys' pricing is misleading in this case, especially
>>>> as they, Currys, contradicted themselves in correspondence with me.
>>>>
>>>> T.S. are looking into it further but they did say that not every
>>>> case is acted upon; they are sometimes filed for possible action in
>>>> the future. Perhaps this happens when a sufficient number of people
>>>> have complained?
>>>>
>>>> Good enough, I suppose, and it goes a long way to explaining why
>>>> Currys etc. don't much care what consumer law says, especially when
>>>> it comes to "warranties".
>>>>
>>>> Si
>>>
>>>
>>> I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?. I have no idea
>>> what youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.
>>>  Is there someone at school you can talk to about it?
>>
>> Funny - a lot of people here know who he's talking too.....
>>
>
>
> who?.


All of us who noticed the original Currys thread....

Mike wrote:

> "RiTSo"  wrote in message

> so why did the OP not post in that thread?!!


Because he couldn't be arsed.

Si

"RiTSo"  wrote in message
news:TBDPe.96563$G8.50532@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Michael Cargill wrote:
>
> :: His title gives you some clue as to what he is referring.
> :
> : It gives bugger all clue.
>
> : I had no idea what the OP was referring to either - for all I know,
> : what he was talking about could be buried deep in another thread.
>
> It is buried deep in another thread, coincidentally titled 'Bloody
> Currys' posted in this NG by the same OP, I think there were enough
> clues there!


What are you talking about?  There is no 'clue' as to what the OP was
talking about - the only thing you can gather from his post is that he is
talking about Currys.  If someone started a thread called "More Squirrels
Please", am I to automatically assume they are referring to a thread a
screen down called "Squirrels Please"...?

To those of us who don't read and remember every single post in a newsgroup,
it is hardly surprising when we ask what is being talked about in this case.
It would have made far more sense if he had just posted to the original
thread that he started.

Michael Cargill wrote:

>
> What are you talking about?  There is no 'clue' as to what the OP was
> talking about - the only thing you can gather from his post is that
> he is talking about Currys.  If someone started a thread called "More
> Squirrels Please", am I to automatically assume they are referring to
> a thread a screen down called "Squirrels Please"...?
>
> To those of us who don't read and remember every single post in a
> newsgroup, it is hardly surprising when we ask what is being talked
> about in this case. It would have made far more sense if he had just
> posted to the original thread that he started.


STFU you dull person.

Si

"Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot"  wrote in message 
news:NuWdnZ2dnZ3L12WfnZ2dnch4k96dnZ2dRVnyqZ2dnZ0@pipex.net...

>I had a phone call from Trading Standards this morning and they think that 
>Currys' pricing is misleading in this case, especially as they, Currys, 
>contradicted themselves in correspondence with me.
>
> T.S. are looking into it further but they did say that not every case is 
> acted upon; they are sometimes filed for possible action in the future. 
> Perhaps this happens when a sufficient number of people have complained?
>
> Good enough, I suppose, and it goes a long way to explaining why Currys 
> etc. don't much care what consumer law says, especially when it comes to 
> "warranties".
>
> Si
>

Is Curry's pricing misleading, did trading standards actually say Curry's 
pricing was misleading or did they say parts of correspondance between you 
and Curry's suggested their correspondance was misleading.  It is important 
not to be vague or try to word something in such a way it says what you 
would like it to although it wasn't really what you were told!
If there was a clear case of Currys misleading people over prices, trading 
standards would have said that and would have told you, then told you what 
legal action they will be taking.
So which is it?  Please stick to the point, only post what trading standards 
said and then give us all a clue what you're going on about.  I don't want 
to go searching through thousands of messages!  I get the impression that 
the answer you got from Trading Standards wasn't the one you wanted and 
you're just trying to encourage others to complain in order to try and 
justify your own complaint - whatever that may be.
If there is a genuine problem and you can prove it, Trading standards will 
take action.  If there isn't a case you should just accept it and move on to 
the next retailer!

Michael Cargill wrote:

> "RiTSo"  wrote in message
> news:TBDPe.96563$G8.50532@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Michael Cargill wrote:
>>
>>>> His title gives you some clue as to what he is referring.
>>>
>>> It gives bugger all clue.
>>
>>> I had no idea what the OP was referring to either - for all I know,
>>> what he was talking about could be buried deep in another thread.
>>
>> It is buried deep in another thread, coincidentally titled 'Bloody
>> Currys' posted in this NG by the same OP, I think there were enough
>> clues there!
>
> What are you talking about?  There is no 'clue' as to what the OP was
> talking about - the only thing you can gather from his post is that
> he is talking about Currys.  If someone started a thread called "More
> Squirrels Please", am I to automatically assume they are referring to
> a thread a screen down called "Squirrels Please"...?
>


Try View > Current View > Show All Messages and scroll up  -  easy.....


> To those of us who don't read and remember every single post in a
> newsgroup, it is hardly surprising when we ask what is being talked
> about in this case. It would have made far more sense if he had just
> posted to the original thread that he started.

"Emma"  wrote in message 
news:Vk6rZOXqawDDFAfF@excalvehs.demon.co.uk...

> Michael Cargill  wrote:
>>"Emma"  wrote in message
>>> Mike  wrote:
>>> >I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?. I have no idea 
>>> >what
>>> >youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.
>>> His title gives you some clue as to what he is referring.
>>It gives bugger all clue.
>
> 'Further to Bloody Currys' - to me it's obvious he's talking about the 
> thread which he also started a few days ago entitled 'Bloody Currys!!!'.
>
> The original thread has the most replies of any currently on this group so 
> it is quite easy to find and follow.
>
> -- 


You might have nothing better to do all day than cross reference messages, 
search groups and guess what people are talking about.  Most of us don't 
want to do that judging by the response so far.  The art of communicating 
effectively is to get your message across clearly, so all the facts are 
there for people to see.  Then they don't have to go searching, or guessing 
what someone is going on about.
I am sure you know this already.

"Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot"  wrote in message
news:r6mdnV4XarHBopLeRVnygQ@pipex.net...

> Michael Cargill wrote:
> >
> > What are you talking about?  There is no 'clue' as to what the OP was
> > talking about - the only thing you can gather from his post is that
> > he is talking about Currys.  If someone started a thread called "More
> > Squirrels Please", am I to automatically assume they are referring to
> > a thread a screen down called "Squirrels Please"...?
> >
> > To those of us who don't read and remember every single post in a
> > newsgroup, it is hardly surprising when we ask what is being talked
> > about in this case. It would have made far more sense if he had just
> > posted to the original thread that he started.
>
> STFU you dull person.


Coming from the person who is moaning about instore prices differing from
website prices and also who is bothering Trading Standards with his inane
queries (and then telling all and sundry on the Interweb), I don't really
feel all that insulted.

Barb wrote:


> Is Curry's pricing misleading, did trading standards actually say
> Curry's pricing was misleading or did they say parts of
> correspondance between you and Curry's suggested their correspondance
> was misleading.


The woman who spoke to me said that she had spoken to her superior who said 
he thought that in this instance Currys pricing *was* misleading.

I was then told that the matter would be elevated to the next level where a 
decision to take action on the findings, or not, would be decided on. This 
would involve my local T.S. and the T.S. office where Currys head office is 
located.


> I don't want to go searching through thousands of messages!


Then don't; the choice is yours. I *really* don't care if you read my posts 
or not. Do you always kick off when you read something that you don't 
understand fully or is it just a newsgroup thing?


> I get the impression that the answer you got from Trading Standards
> wasn't the one you wanted and you're just trying to encourage others
> to complain in order to try and justify your own complaint - whatever
> that may be.


If you're still not even aware of what my complaint is why are you making 
such a fuss?

It was the answer I wanted, that the pricing was misleading, but whether any 
legal action takes place is down to T.S. If they were to go to the trouble 
of taking Currys to court and the only outcome was Currys agreeing to put an 
extra line in their T's & C's then it would hardly be worth the expense, 
which Currys are fully aware of, IMO.

Si

"Michael Cargill"  wrote in message
news:3n8t32FeibdU1@individual.net...

> "RiTSo"  wrote in message
> news:TBDPe.96563$G8.50532@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Michael Cargill wrote:
> >
> > :: His title gives you some clue as to what he is referring.
> > :
> > : It gives bugger all clue.
> >
> > : I had no idea what the OP was referring to either - for all I know,
> > : what he was talking about could be buried deep in another thread.
> >
> > It is buried deep in another thread, coincidentally titled 'Bloody
> > Currys' posted in this NG by the same OP, I think there were enough
> > clues there!
>
> What are you talking about?  There is no 'clue' as to what the OP was
> talking about - the only thing you can gather from his post is that he is
> talking about Currys.  If someone started a thread called "More Squirrels
> Please", am I to automatically assume they are referring to a thread a
> screen down called "Squirrels Please"...?
>
> To those of us who don't read and remember every single post in a
newsgroup,
> it is hardly surprising when we ask what is being talked about in this
case.
> It would have made far more sense if he had just posted to the original
> thread that he started.


If you hadn't been following the thread then you aren't missing anything.
If you felt it was interesting then it's hardly a hard job to find out what
the original was about.

If you were in a bar with your mates and you went to the toilet, would you
insist they rewind and give you a summary of what they had been talking
about when you come back? Or would you just pick it up as you went along?

Steven.

In article , mikementalist@myrealbox.com 
says...

> "RiTSo"  wrote in message
> news:TBDPe.96563$G8.50532@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Michael Cargill wrote:
> >
> > :: His title gives you some clue as to what he is referring.
> > :
> > : It gives bugger all clue.
> >
> > : I had no idea what the OP was referring to either - for all I know,
> > : what he was talking about could be buried deep in another thread.
> >
> > It is buried deep in another thread, coincidentally titled 'Bloody
> > Currys' posted in this NG by the same OP, I think there were enough
> > clues there!
> 
> What are you talking about?  There is no 'clue' as to what the OP was
> talking about - the only thing you can gather from his post is that he is
> talking about Currys.  If someone started a thread called "More Squirrels
> Please", am I to automatically assume they are referring to a thread a
> screen down called "Squirrels Please"...?
> 
> To those of us who don't read and remember every single post in a newsgroup,
> it is hardly surprising when we ask what is being talked about in this case.
> It would have made far more sense if he had just posted to the original
> thread that he started.
> 
> 
> 

It might well be (entirely reasobaly in my view) that the OP doesn't 
give a flyomg fuck what you might assume, whether reasinably or 
otherwise. Why do you mongs think that posters are writing for you?

In article <430eee00$0$22925$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>, 
me@privacy.net says...

> 
> "Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot"  wrote in message 
> news:NuWdnZ2dnZ3L12WfnZ2dnch4k96dnZ2dRVnyqZ2dnZ0@pipex.net...
> >I had a phone call from Trading Standards this morning and they think that 
> >Currys' pricing is misleading in this case, especially as they, Currys, 
> >contradicted themselves in correspondence with me.
> >
> > T.S. are looking into it further but they did say that not every case is 
> > acted upon; they are sometimes filed for possible action in the future. 
> > Perhaps this happens when a sufficient number of people have complained?
> >
> > Good enough, I suppose, and it goes a long way to explaining why Currys 
> > etc. don't much care what consumer law says, especially when it comes to 
> > "warranties".
> >
> > Si
> 
> 
> I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?. I have no idea what 
> youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.
>  Is there someone at school you can talk to about it?
> 
> 
> 

Probably not to you then shitepipe. If you don't understand it, that's 
OK. Nobody gives a fuck.

In article <ACHPe.4062$b4.3106@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, barb.b@q.com 
says...

> 
> "Emma"  wrote in message 
> news:Vk6rZOXqawDDFAfF@excalvehs.demon.co.uk...
> > Michael Cargill  wrote:
> >>"Emma"  wrote in message
> >>> Mike  wrote:
> >>> >I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?. I have no idea 
> >>> >what
> >>> >youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.
> >>> His title gives you some clue as to what he is referring.
> >>It gives bugger all clue.
> >
> > 'Further to Bloody Currys' - to me it's obvious he's talking about the 
> > thread which he also started a few days ago entitled 'Bloody Currys!!!'.
> >
> > The original thread has the most replies of any currently on this group so 
> > it is quite easy to find and follow.
> >
> > -- 
> 
> You might have nothing better to do all day than cross reference messages, 
> search groups and guess what people are talking about.  Most of us don't 
> want to do that judging by the response so far.  The art of communicating 
> effectively is to get your message across clearly, so all the facts are 
> there for people to see.  Then they don't have to go searching, or guessing 
> what someone is going on about.
> I am sure you know this already.
> 
> 
> 

Yet again you're assuming that the OP is making some effort to 
communicate with you - you arrogant, self important fuck!

<Me>; <myself>; "I"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1d795b7aa9e0b83c9896a0@news.plus.net...

>
> It might well be (entirely reasobaly in my view) that the OP doesn't
> give a flyomg fuck what you might assume, whether reasinably or
> otherwise. Why do you mongs think that posters are writing for you?


What, other than the fact that he is posting in a public forum you mean...?

Barb wrote:

> "Emma"  wrote in message
> news:Vk6rZOXqawDDFAfF@excalvehs.demon.co.uk...
>> Michael Cargill  wrote:
>>> "Emma"  wrote in message
>>>> Mike  wrote:
>>>>> I love these sort of posts.  Who are you talking to?. I have no
>>>>> idea what
>>>>> youve bought or why trading standards are contacting you.
>>>> His title gives you some clue as to what he is referring.
>>> It gives bugger all clue.
>>
>> 'Further to Bloody Currys' - to me it's obvious he's talking about
>> the thread which he also started a few days ago entitled 'Bloody
>> Currys!!!'.
>>
>> The original thread has the most replies of any currently on this
>> group so it is quite easy to find and follow.
>>
>> --
>
> You might have nothing better to do all day than cross reference
> messages, search groups and guess what people are talking about.
> Most of us don't want to do that judging by the response so far.


Most of 'us' meaning two of 'us'?


> The
> art of communicating effectively is to get your message across
> clearly, so all the facts are there for people to see.  Then they
> don't have to go searching, or guessing what someone is going on
> about.


It's not rocket science to find his post - if you've time to write a reply,
you surely must have had time to search for it!!

"Steven Campbell"  wrote in message
news:430f4ac7$0$1285$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

>
> "Michael Cargill"  wrote in message
> news:3n8t32FeibdU1@individual.net...
> >
> > To those of us who don't read and remember every single post in a
> newsgroup,
> > it is hardly surprising when we ask what is being talked about in this
> case.
> > It would have made far more sense if he had just posted to the original
> > thread that he started.
>
> If you hadn't been following the thread then you aren't missing anything.
> If you felt it was interesting then it's hardly a hard job to find out
what
> the original was about.


I never said it was, but strangely enough I do not know how easy or
difficult it will be to find out what he was referring to before I have
actually found it.


> If you were in a bar with your mates and you went to the toilet, would you
> insist they rewind and give you a summary of what they had been talking
> about when you come back? Or would you just pick it up as you went along?


That is not what happened here - the OP has started a new topic.  If someone
suddenly started a new conversation about something that I did not know
about, then I would quite obviously ask what it is that they are referring
to.

" cupra"  wrote in message
news:3n910tFehjuU1@individual.net...

> Barb wrote:
> > "Emma"  wrote in message
> > news:Vk6rZOXqawDDFAfF@excalvehs.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > The
> > art of communicating effectively is to get your message across
> > clearly, so all the facts are there for people to see.  Then they
> > don't have to go searching, or guessing what someone is going on
> > about.
>
> It's not rocket science to find his post - if you've time to write a
reply,
> you surely must have had time to search for it!!


Right, because those of us who did not know what he was referring to knew
exactly where to look didn't we...?

And we are referring to all cases when someone does this, not just this one.

"Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot"  wrote in message
news:KuidnZ2dnZ2WnCnnnZ2dnRDWkt6dnZ2dRVnypp2dnZ0@pipex.net...

>
> Then don't; the choice is yours. I *really* don't care if you read my
posts
> or not. Do you always kick off when you read something that you don't
> understand fully or is it just a newsgroup thing?


We are not 'kicking off', we are just saying we had no idea what you were
talking about.

In article , mikementalist@myrealbox.com 
says...

> <Me>; <myself>; "I"  wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d795b7aa9e0b83c9896a0@news.plus.net...
> >
> > It might well be (entirely reasobaly in my view) that the OP doesn't
> > give a flyomg fuck what you might assume, whether reasinably or
> > otherwise. Why do you mongs think that posters are writing for you?
> 
> What, other than the fact that he is posting in a public forum you mean...?
> 
> 
> 

OK so if the OP wanted to communicate with you wouldn't he/she have e-
mailed you? Do you really think that posting in a public forum is an 
attempt to communicate with ALL the readers? Christ, you're not bright 
are you?

In article , mikementalist@myrealbox.com 
says...

> " cupra"  wrote in message
> news:3n910tFehjuU1@individual.net...
> > Barb wrote:
> > > "Emma"  wrote in message
> > > news:Vk6rZOXqawDDFAfF@excalvehs.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > The
> > > art of communicating effectively is to get your message across
> > > clearly, so all the facts are there for people to see.  Then they
> > > don't have to go searching, or guessing what someone is going on
> > > about.
> >
> > It's not rocket science to find his post - if you've time to write a
> reply,
> > you surely must have had time to search for it!!
> 
> Right, because those of us who did not know what he was referring to knew
> exactly where to look didn't we...?
> 
> And we are referring to all cases when someone does this, not just this one.
> 
> 
> 

Again, for the dumb & dumbers, why do you think that the OP really needs 
you to understand what he/she is talking about? How self important are 
you?

Michael Cargill wrote:

> " cupra"  wrote in message
> news:3n910tFehjuU1@individual.net...
>> Barb wrote:
>>> "Emma"  wrote in message
>>> news:Vk6rZOXqawDDFAfF@excalvehs.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> The
>>> art of communicating effectively is to get your message across
>>> clearly, so all the facts are there for people to see.  Then they
>>> don't have to go searching, or guessing what someone is going on
>>> about.
>>
>> It's not rocket science to find his post - if you've time to write a
>> reply, you surely must have had time to search for it!!
>
> Right, because those of us who did not know what he was referring to
> knew exactly where to look didn't we...?
>
> And we are referring to all cases when someone does this, not just
> this one.


Look at it like this:

It's part II of a series on BBC2 - you've missed part I and can't follow the
plot. I doubt if anyone in this situation raises a hue and cry...

Michael Cargill wrote:

>
> Coming from the person who is moaning about instore prices differing
> from website prices and also who is bothering Trading Standards with
> his inane queries (and then telling all and sundry on the Interweb),
> I don't really feel all that insulted.


So it's ok to price, even just possibly, illegally then?

Si

Michael Cargill wrote:

>
> I never said it was, but strangely enough I do not know how easy or
> difficult it will be to find out what he was referring to before I
> have actually found it.
>


If only I had added the word "post" to this subject title! Silly me. Please 
accept my humbles.

Si

Barb  writes

>You might have nothing better to do all day than cross reference messages,
>search groups and guess what people are talking about.


Out of curiosity, which newsreader software do you use that makes life 
so hard for you?

-- 
Emma - The Chocolate Monster
http://www.chocmonster.rules.it
http://www.altgallery.shows.it
http://speeding.to/maevanwijk

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:37:38 +0100, "  cupra"
 wrote:


>Try View > Current View > Show All Messages and scroll up  -  easy.....


Doesn't work here!

If you're going to be helpful, which is admirable, *please* identify
which news reading program you're using.  I assume you mean Outlook
Express, but it does no harm to say.  There are many other news
reading programs available.

Mike.

Mike wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:37:38 +0100, "  cupra"
>  wrote:
>
>> Try View > Current View > Show All Messages and scroll up  -
>> easy.....
>
> Doesn't work here!
>
> If you're going to be helpful, which is admirable, *please* identify
> which news reading program you're using.  I assume you mean Outlook
> Express, but it does no harm to say.  There are many other news
> reading programs available.


I was replying to a poster using OE so didn't feel the need to expand. If
the poster was using Forte Agent, I'd have done the same with reader
specific instructions.

Michael Cargill wrote:

> "Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot"  wrote in message
> news:KuidnZ2dnZ2WnCnnnZ2dnRDWkt6dnZ2dRVnypp2dnZ0@pipex.net...
>>
>> Then don't; the choice is yours. I *really* don't care if you read
>> my posts or not. Do you always kick off when you read something that
>> you don't understand fully or is it just a newsgroup thing?
>
> We are not 'kicking off', we are just saying we had no idea what you
> were talking about.


Yes. Why does it bother you so much?

Si

"Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot"  wrote in message
news:NuWdnZ2dnZ3L12WfnZ2dnch4k96dnZ2dRVnyqZ2dnZ0@pipex.net...

> I had a phone call from Trading Standards this morning and they
think that
> Currys' pricing is misleading in this case, especially as they,
Currys,
> contradicted themselves in correspondence with me.
>
> T.S. are looking into it further but they did say that not every
case is
> acted upon; they are sometimes filed for possible action in the
future.
> Perhaps this happens when a sufficient number of people have
complained?
>
> Good enough, I suppose, and it goes a long way to explaining why
Currys etc.
> don't much care what consumer law says, especially when it comes to
> "warranties".


I'm not entirely happy that Trading Standards is run by Local
Authorities rather than a Government dept like the Office of Fair
Trading.    Clearly the consumer wants to have a local point of
contact as the issue often relates to a local trader, but when the
issue is with a national chain of stores or other national service
provider I think there is a problem.

As all local authorities are strapped for cash, they probably would
rather another local authority took up the issue rather than they.
In the OP's case what would the benefit be for his local Trading
Standards to bring an expensive action rather than letting another
office do it?

Does anyone know how the 'Argos' issue of a couple of years ago came
to actioned.  Presumably there were complaints residing with a number
of local Trading Standards, but what finally decided which of them
should bring the action?

Roger R

I am really depressed now - Nowhere on this NG can I find a post called 
Squirrels please - has it been deleted? :-P
I can't wait for the posting of more squirrels please too, I bet that will 
be a corker!


Ritch


"Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot"  wrote in message 
news:r6mdnV4XarHBopLeRVnygQ@pipex.net...

> Michael Cargill wrote:
>>
>> What are you talking about?  There is no 'clue' as to what the OP was
>> talking about - the only thing you can gather from his post is that
>> he is talking about Currys.  If someone started a thread called "More
>> Squirrels Please", am I to automatically assume they are referring to
>> a thread a screen down called "Squirrels Please"...?
>>
>> To those of us who don't read and remember every single post in a
>> newsgroup, it is hardly surprising when we ask what is being talked
>> about in this case. It would have made far more sense if he had just
>> posted to the original thread that he started.
>
> STFU you dull person.
>
> Si
>