In reply to a post by MCM:

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

As the ASA say any information should be "Honest, Accurate & Truefull" ...

Such a shame the same isn't true for the vast majority of your posts.

"Truefull"? Well, they're full of something...

In reply to a post by FRS_Plunderer:

reminds me of this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32swlxb053I

LOL, thats so Bob!

Are you suggesting that is acceptable to put out at the very best highly misleading information and in my view incorrect and inaccurate information. I suggest you consult a dictionary and look up the meaning of RARE

The ASA's remit has been widened considerable. It does not have to be a customer facing organisation nor does it specifically have to be an advert

So what is stopping you complaining Bob, you seem to dedicate most of your time to crunching rollout spreadsheets, making wild claims and complaining about BT where ever you can and as much as possible. Might as well vent to the ASA well?

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Are you suggesting that is acceptable to put out at the very best highly misleading information and in my view incorrect and inaccurate information. I suggest you consult a dictionary and look up the meaning of RARE

I have indeed looked up the meaning of rare in the OED and it is a very subjective definition, not one that actually susbtansiates any conditions and in fact it uses terms that are also subjective.

And as you say it is YOUR VIEW so actually no proof what so ever as usual.

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Are you suggesting that [...]?

I love this tactic of Bob's.

He never actually answers any direct question you ask. He always turns the question back on you *and* screws your words into the worst possible connotation, *and* demands that you answer him instead: "Are you suggesting that..."

It's very akin to this tactic I've taken from an article on Troll Tactics:

In reference to www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html:

• They don't enter into the argument directly, but facilitate an argument between list members, e.g.: by highlighting points that one list member has made, perhaps in a way that is more confrontational than the original intention.

Not exactly, but very similar.

However, that's more of an advanced tactic, compared to these ones:

In reference to www.teamtechnology.co.uk/troll-tactics.html:

• the use of provocative language and sweeping generalisations about certain topics or categories of people
• a lack of in-depth understanding of the topic
• a lack of personal information
• a lack of a genuinely unique perspective on the topic
• a lack of humour
• restarting topics that have already been done
• use of language that encourages the dialogue to enter topics that are controversial and likely to upset some team members
• the use of an attention-seeking gimmick (e.g.: "I was once exploited by an XYZ")
• they follow up their own articles if the group doesn't respond to their posts

Ho Hum.

Until we see better responses, it's probably better to act on the side of caution, and treat as any troll. Just don't respond.