Re: O2 Hoster - The Current Situation

["john" <john@xxxxxxx>]

>what part of "do not reply" was hard to grasp for you?

i grasp it all kenneth. i just don't agree.

> Chris worked for O2, that's it everyone knew that and no-one IMHO
has any

this is where i accept i may be wrong, and if so, fine - i take some
of my comments back. i thought chris was a reseller for o2, not an
employee.

> right to pry into his personal business with an ex-employer from
this group
> even if they were customers of that company that's just plain rude
and
> stupid IMO. Chris didn't so much sell it as tried to get us all a
deal on it
> given the volume from UKHA, I don't see any problem there do you?

again, if he was an employee it is different from if he was reselling
the service, although both are dubious from a ukha point of view.
many of us run businesses, most of us don't try and plug them (to the
extent chris did) to the group.

And your
> contention that Chris is somehow responsible for an ex-employers
action is,
> quite frankly, so stupidly ridiculous I can't believe anyone would
even
> think that let alone post it!

again, depends on whether chris was employed by o2 or resold for.

> The details of Chris's dispute with O2 are nothing to do with you,
me or
> anyone else on this group, if there's an issue with O2 then it's
with O2 and
> the people responsible for providing the service now, not in the
past.
>
> > who exactly are o2? i always presumed they were they same o2 that
> > sponsored arsenal football club? if not i'm quite amazed that o2
the
> > communications company 1) didn't stop o2 the hosting company or
2) chose
> > the name if an firm with that name existed. and if they are the
same
> > company, why are they in such a desperate need of chris's tech
support?
>
> O2 Hoster can be found in the companies register if you had
bothered to
> check it I'm sure if you look and it's not O2 the telecoms provider.

sure, sorry, i didn't think to check the companies register for this
debate. maybe i should have.

> > i'm just glad i stayed away from this so-called amazing deal from
the
> > start, i knew it would end in tears.
>
> So if you have nothing to do with it why on earth did you see the
need to
> basically stir it up then?

i'm not stirring up anything. just joining in the debate that has
been filling my inbox for the last year.

> > > No, remember the rider at the top **DO NOT REPLY TO THIS**
> >
> > whoops.
>
> Well John all I can say is that I'm not impressed.
>
did i ask you to be?