In reply to a post by RobertoS:

As for arguing law with David_W, that at least gives me, and I expect all the others, some comic relief from your blind stubborness.

Replying feels a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. It doesn't exactly qualify as a sporting contest (watch the video in the link...).


I know the law can be opaque to an outsider, which is why I care so much about communicating the law to the lay person. However, this task is difficult with someone that concentrates on fallacious 'proof by assertion' rather than reading the information and references provided.

You appear to forget a precedent has been set.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

You appear to forget a precedent has been set.

If you identify the precedent you believe has been set, I can try to respond to it.

It's in the thread.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

It's in the thread.

That's a mere 153 posts (at the time I started to write this) that I would I have to trawl through.

If you want a sensible reply, please make my task easier - or is this a case of argumentum ad nauseam?


I can see two possibilities for an alleged precedent in this thread - either you're talking about the actions of the original poster's previous ISP, or ACS Law's use of Norwich Pharmacal orders. Which of these do you wish me to address?

I think BatBoy's referring to the "precedent" that BBC iPlayer blocked some UK AOL users who were accessing the service from an AOL proxy which had a US IP address. As I understand it, AOL fixed the problem for their users by changing the proxy to a UK IP address. Therefore, the logic apparently goes, since AOL fixed a problem their customers were having with accessing iPlayer, so PlusNet should fix problems one (or more) of their customers is having with accessing Sky News.

I don't personally see any relevance since in the AOL case, the problem was caused by AOL effectively allocating a US address to UK users, whereas in this case the problem is caused by Sky erroneously blocking valid UK addresses. It's a very different situation. Ferretuk's analogy illustrates this well. It's not a relevant "precedent", and even if it was.... so what? What one ISP chooses to do surely doesn't bind all other ISPs to follow.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

It's in the thread.

Well link to it.

It is one thing to be a constant devil's advocate but you can have too much of a good thing.

Adversarial for good purpose is one thing, but with you it is a habit, a habit that needs to be broken.

It's easily found with Ctrl-F "precedent", but it's not just the one post - it's the whole conversation. It's rather pointless discussing the situation with someone whose only replying to the latest post, rather than having been involved in the whole thread.

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/plusnet/t/4203501-r...
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/plusnet/t/4203306-r...

Edited by deleted (Fri 25-Jan-13 12:23:01)

Post deleted by billford

Post deleted by billford

Edited by deleted (Fri 25-Jan-13 11:41:09)