As I recall, it was all sorted out by Sky offering you the deal you wanted, but you still complain. Bizarre.

In reply to a post by lelboy:

Bizarre.

What's bizarre is that you paint a non-issue (i.e. this one) as some kind of issue in order to support your baseless argument that Sky made a pig's ear of the transition.

Sky have used this method of billing for several years, and yet it's only now that anyone has anything to say about it.

Lat words from me on this. Both you and batboy are selective in your memory of my situation. He commented that I got what I was after - I say that I shouldn't have to be chasing Sky to address erroneous text messages, emails and nonsense from inadequate representatives, culminating with a threat to leave, before anything sensible was said. You prattle on about a billing issue, but search your memory and you will find inconsistencies in the comments from all the Sky reps involved in "my" issue - and the fact that the wanted to charge, on two occasions, £50 or £60 (whichever you believe) to facilitate an agreeable shift. My recent "bizarre" (?) comment relates to the principle of the "complete" issue. Sky handled it badly, but for whatever reason, you wish to be an apologist for them. Your right, of course, as is your action of burying your head in the sand, so you don't have to acknowledge the complete situation. As I say, bizarre!

And you want to use this thread to dig up your own legacy issue and tell us all you were right all along. I'm not saying whether your own issue was valid or not, I'm just saying that this particular thread, which you decided to jump in to, proves absolutely nothing, and backs up absolutely nothing.

Against my better judgement, I'll quickly respond. You and a couple of others were scathing at the time of my original problem, implying that Sky were not at fault/only you have this issue/what do you want. The matter was closed as far as I was concerned but, at a later time, and still surrounding the issue that Sky can be less than transparent, the same apologists for Sky take issue with others' problems: Sky are, on occasion, definitely less than fair or competent. If you choose to side with them, then I feel morally obliged to challenge YOU. At 63 years of age, I have little interest in establishing the fact that "I was right": history shows that, by the outcome. You people, however, feel the need to put me down because I have the temerity to challenge your selective take on an issue - especially when the point of the debate is whether Sky behave honorably, or in the best case scenario, clearly and transparently: they don't - on every occasion.

Well I guess you chose the wrong thread to prove your point then. The "Sky apologist" as you like to call me, has shown that Watchdog has raised a non-issue simply because people take objection to the word "supplement". If anything this thread actually shows that complaints against Sky, at least in this instance, are baseless. So it doesn't prove your point, if anything it proves the "apologists" are correct.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

If anything this thread actually shows that complaints against Sky, at least in this instance, are baseless.

There's no proof of that. WD did not broadcast the whole complaint. WD would not have taken up the cudgels purely on the semantics of 'supplement'.

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

WD did not broadcast the whole complaint.

What makes you think that?

They didn't broadcast the whole complaint as the persons mentioned are posting on the Sky Pro forums

What was the whole complaint?