Well I know of exchanges that were not LLU enabled that were on the list and went into build some months later. Just after the time well known comms firm A&N Other dug in some fibre tubes come to think of it

Just to stay on topic. Well done on your promotion, Mark, and don't forget to sign up. I think the CWU South Yorkshire Branch covers professional broadband workers in Sheffield.

Edited by deleted (Sat 07-Oct-06 23:13:21)

In reply to:

---

They are the ones who chose the members from their list of customers.

---

Not long before I resigned from PUG we recruited some new members. There was a lot of discussion by the existing customer members of PUG around trying to balance the members around the three ISP's, residential or business, where they were usually found (AG, portal forums or Usenet).

I cannot remember a single comment by any member of Plusnet staff Indeed I know exactly what sort of reaction there would have been if they had tried to interfere.

Yes they invited the original founding members, but they made it very clear that they wanted us to be as independant as possible ASAP.

Thanks for that but neither you nor Ian have attempted to answer my question. I'll simplify it. Which of the following has the authority to close down the PUG:

a) PlusNet customers
b) P|UG members
c) PlusNet plc?

Simon

It is also worth pointing out, for clarity - that some of plusnet's own staff have access to the usertools server.

I agree with your comments.

All of this looks so familiar... another golden chance to knock Plusnet, for any obscure reason by the same regular people on this Forum, who clearly have nothing better to do than spend most of their spare time on here, attempting to put down an ISP, when most are not even customers of that same ISP.

No doubt the usual " fanboy " and other attributes will be targeted at me, do I care?

I wish the new member of staff at Plusnet, all the very best.

I certainly did try and attempt to answer your question..

In reply to:

---

Dissolution of PUG is also laid out under section 8
http://usergroup.plus.net/constitution.php

---

tbh I really cant understand why you keep going over the same thing or why its such of an interest to you, nor why we have to keep justifying ourselves to you for what we do.

but to clarify and make it 100% clear

NO Plusnet plc do not have the authority to close it down

Admittedly it would not be as useful to PN customers if there wasnt any interaction from the staff... and conversely it wouldnt be serving the customers if no-one visited, nor were we able to help anyone.

Can you imagine how it would backfire on them if they did try and restrict something.. or even if they took the box away... or tried to delete content
but then again I already covered that in my post above too..

The site and content has been written by PlusNet customers, the forums were set up by PlusNet customers, the forum is managed by PlusNet customers, Plusnet staff do not have access to the content, nor do they write site content, nor do they have the authority to post content to the PUG site only PUG admin. Plusnet staff do not tell us what we can and cant write, nor do they write content.

Again if they did do something and overrule what we have done... it would soon become obvious elsewhere because the members would simply take the info elsewhere.

Its so very easy isnt it to keep picking away at something, and critise what others do.
If someone thinks they can do a better job... go set up your own site and try do something.
See if you can do it any better... then you may have earned the right to keep picking away and trying to wear people down, who have put an awful lot of personal time and effort into something.

and now Im also beginning to sound like a stuck record, because Ive honestly answered you to the best of my ability and Im not going to go round and round and round and round in circles repeating myself.

I certainly did try and attempt to answer your question..
-----
You certainly did - and I apologise for missing your previous post which you quote from (albeit, it was not a reply to a post of mine). Thank you for your further clarification which is direct and unambiguous. If other PUG members were as direct in their replies to various questions then I suspect that there would never be any "stuck records".

I know for example that various PUG members have been asked over many months for the name of the PUG Chairman - and no answer has ever been given. Can you explain the need for such evasiveness?

Simon

In reply to:

---

These 2 sites get a hell of a lot of hits per day and to host the site and content ourselves would cost an arm and a leg.

PUG did discuss the possibility of hosting elsewhere.. but the costs were far too high because of the traffic the sites generate.

---

So it is paid for (and I presume maintained) by Plusnet [by maintained I mean they would fix/repair any physical problems with the server free of charge]

How then is the usergroup financed -- Your own constitution (section 5

Can you explain why you need to know ..being a non customer and all?

Arguing for the sake of it? In my view it makes it hard for you to pick on an individual ..and in this current climate .. this can only be good. If it spoils the anit brigades funs thats fine by me.

Edited by onlyme2 (Sun 08-Oct-06 11:43:54)

Hear ..hear.. I once held pr100 ( Simon ) in high esteem, however it is clearly evident that he, and many others, the majority not even being Plusnet Customers, just come on here now to continue what can best be described as a vendetta against anything and everything Plusnet.

Great shame.