The interpretation that they are in some way dodgy is yours, not mine. I don't think McDonalds are 'dodgy'. I've chosen not to eat there in the past 5 years or more. I'd bet that I haven't been sober in a McD's for the past 10 years. Specsavers are what they are - a high street chain with a heavy emphasis on advertising and 'special offers' to bring customers in the door. If the 18% staff turnover that they experience in the UK is replicated here, your chances of building up a relationship with an optician who can get to know your eyes and your preferences are slim to none. That's not what I look for from a healthcare professional. If they meet your requirements or those of other posters, best of luck with that.
RainyDay said:
The underlining is mine. I feel that you should either justify this comment or remove it. I reckon that this is potentially libellous/slanderous and brings the good name of AAM into disrepute and is probably in breach of the .
Disclaimer: I have no vested interest in Specsavers other than as an occasional customer.
(As I anticipated earlier we're into semantics/hair splitting...)
Yes - a seemingly rhetorical one that implies that the answer is "no" and insinuating that Specsavers are in some way inferior to other opticians. I stand over my assertion that this comment is out of order and should either be justified or removed.
Yes - a seemingly rhetorical one that implies that the answer is "no" and insinuating that Specsavers are in some way inferior to other opticians. I stand over my assertion that this comment is out of order and should either be justified or removed.
RainyDay said:
I used to go to Specsavers but changed recently and am glad I did. I went to Egan's in Cork (used to when I was growing up but switched for the cost). It was more expensive but not by a whole lot (about 320 euro for two pairs, one of which was sunglasses), and the reassurance made up for it. Also my eyes have a larger asigmatism than is the norm, and was well impressed with the attention to detail.
Specsaves are probably fine for the standard type of customer.
RainyDay said:
No. It is your prejudicial insinuation about the services offered by Specsavers that is the problem and this is your responsibility. Implying that the problem lies with my interpretation of your comments is a subterfuge. You have still offered no justification for the insinuation that there is some problem with the service offered by Specsavers or, specifically, how they might be "messing with [customers'] eyes". Dress it up whatever way you want but this comment is out of order.
U
Unregistered
Guest
If anyone else made that type of unsubstantiated claim, you'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Looks like a case of double standards.
Looks like a case of double standards.
RainyDay said:
But you don't specifically stand over your (rhetorical it seems to me) question? How anybody can read the rhetorical question at issue as anything other than an insinuation of some sort of dodginess on the part of Specsavers, how anybody can continue to defend at length such an groundless insinuation iand how such a comment is allowed to stand without substantiation and in the light of the posting guidelines is beyond me...
U
Unregistered
Guest
I'm a bit confused as to why Clubman can make scurrilous, unsupported claims about Microsoft in this thread http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=9922 (buggy software, buggy crap, site keeps getting hacked, cheaper/better alternatives), but yet objects to the claims about Specsavers in this thread. Surely, unless it can be backed up with specific, independent and objective evidence that MS in some way offer an inferior service to customers than other software providers, then this slur should be withdrawn.
Nice on RainyDay, eh unregistered guest. The difference here is that MS o/s are buggy, and while the competition are not as slick and feature rich, the only reason they survive at all is that they are much less buggy. Companies still use o/s's like OpenVMS as back end servers cos they can stay up longer.
Specsavers are all right, they may be a chain but they are very transparent (boom boom). You know what you get and I believe they are just as thourough as the private guy, inho, I have been going to them for years.
Specsavers are all right, they may be a chain but they are very transparent (boom boom). You know what you get and I believe they are just as thourough as the private guy, inho, I have been going to them for years.
Unregistered said:
Actually it was Microsoft themselves who insinuated that their own software (at least the versions before the latest releases) was buggy and open to hacking/cracking. I merely alluded to the radio advertisement that carried these comments and which basically said that a good reason to upgrade was because the existing software was dodgy while the new software was more reliable/secure and was on special offer.
BlueSpud said:
To be fair, I'm pretty sure that if Rainyday had something to say on this matter then he would not resort to posting as Unregistered so I assume that this was not him.
U
Unregistered
Guest
ClubMan said:
Your comments are (to use your own words and standards) disparaging, scurrilous, pejorative, outrageous in the absence of supporting proof, potentially libellous/slanderous, brings the good name of AAM into disrepute and is probably in breach of the posting guidelines. If anyone wants to listen to the advert in question, download RTE’s Morning Ireland from 28th April last ([broken link removed]) and jump to the ad break about 42 minutes into the show. The advert actually refers to two specific problems that may have occurred with older versions;
- your inbox may be stuffed with spam
- you may get a virus which wipes your hard drives
No reference to bugs, buggy, buggy crap, sites getting hacked at all. The ad goes on to mention one benefit of the new version as ‘secure access to your data when out of the office’. If Saab or Volvo offer a new safety feature like side air bags, does that make their older cars 'dodgy'?
But that’s a bit of a diversion. Clubman & Bluespud are entitled to their opinions on MS, as Rainy is entitled to his opinion on Specsavers. The interesting question is whether Clubman is applying the same standard of proof to his own contributions to those of others?
Unregistered said:
Not at all. Most, if not all, software contains bugs. If you want proof that Microsoft's software specifically contains bugs then simply look at Microsoft's own or any of the many media reports about this issue (e.g. [broken link removed] to get you started and here are a few more if you want to dig further). Comments such as mine would only be potentially libellous/slanderous if they were untrue. Obviously they are not. The same cannot be said right now for the earlier comments about Specsavers.
U
Unregistered
Guest
Oh let’s please get back to the real world. The double standards being applied here are glaringly obvious. The reference to the MS bug database is a subterfuge. Everyone knows & accepts that MS software, like all commercial software (including what you describe as the ‘cheaper/better’ alternatives) has bugs.
But your original comment didn’t say that MS software has bugs. You referred to it as the ‘buggy software that keeps crashing’ and ‘a load of buggy crap’. Where is the “specific, independent and objective evidence” (your words) that MS in some way “offer an inferior service to customers than other“ (your standard of proof) software providers to back up this disparaging remark.
You refer to ‘site that keeps getting hacked’ in your insinuation that MS hosting software is somehow inferior. Of course, there were no reference to sites or hacking at all in the real advert, so your allegation that this is part of the advert is absolutely untrue. Is this not an ‘outragous’ and ‘scurrilous’ (your words) accusation that is potentially slanderous/libellous (your words)? Where is the independent and objective evidence” (your words) that MS in some way “offer an inferior service to customers than other“ (your standard of proof) hosting providers to back up this disparaging remark.
Where is the “independent and objective evidence” (your words) that the alternative packages which you recommend as ‘cheaper/better’ are actually cheaper (when total cost of ownership is taken into account) and better?
Or perhaps having reviewed all this, you’ll feel that there is really nothing wrong with an off-the-cuff remark expressing a personal opinion regarding a particular provider in the market?
But your original comment didn’t say that MS software has bugs. You referred to it as the ‘buggy software that keeps crashing’ and ‘a load of buggy crap’. Where is the “specific, independent and objective evidence” (your words) that MS in some way “offer an inferior service to customers than other“ (your standard of proof) software providers to back up this disparaging remark.
You refer to ‘site that keeps getting hacked’ in your insinuation that MS hosting software is somehow inferior. Of course, there were no reference to sites or hacking at all in the real advert, so your allegation that this is part of the advert is absolutely untrue. Is this not an ‘outragous’ and ‘scurrilous’ (your words) accusation that is potentially slanderous/libellous (your words)? Where is the independent and objective evidence” (your words) that MS in some way “offer an inferior service to customers than other“ (your standard of proof) hosting providers to back up this disparaging remark.
Where is the “independent and objective evidence” (your words) that the alternative packages which you recommend as ‘cheaper/better’ are actually cheaper (when total cost of ownership is taken into account) and better?
Or perhaps having reviewed all this, you’ll feel that there is really nothing wrong with an off-the-cuff remark expressing a personal opinion regarding a particular provider in the market?
Unregistered said:
Are you saying that MSDN is not part of the real world and can be so easily dismissed as proof that Microsoft software contains bugs/flaws, security holes etc....?
... if so then I trust that the CERT website will satisfy your need for independent proof that this is the case?
I have backed up my points in the other thread with evidence. No such evidence was presented for the earlier comment about Specsavers.
U
Unregistered
Guest
No - my point (which in all fairness was pretty clear first time round) is that existence of bugs does not come within an asses roar of backing up your scurrilous, outrageous, potentially libellous/slanderous claims that MS software is 'a load of buggy crap'. As you pointed out yourself, all software has bugs. You come nowhere near reaching the standard of proof that you expect from others, i.e. 'offer an inferior service to customers than others'ClubMan said:
I get a 'The page cannot be displayed' error on that link. But if (as I suspect) you are pointing to Cert's listing of MS bugs/vulnerabilities, then that is no more relevant than the MSDN bug list above, for the same reasons. As you pointed out yourself, all software has bugs. You come nowhere near reaching the standard of proof that you expect from others, i.e. 'offer an inferior service to customers than others'. Indeed, the alternative OS products recommended on the Todd Verbeek page you linked to have their share of appearances on the CERT databases. Does thes make Linus & Mac OS a pile of buggy crap too?ClubMan said:
Please refresh my memory - I see no other evidence presented in the other thread to support your scurrilous, outragous, potentially libellous/slanderous claims.ClubMan said:
Apologies for the earlier broken link. is more or less the same thing.
For what it's worth [broken link removed] supporting the claim that Microsoft may not be giving consumers value for money compared to other software vendors.
I don't think that anybody can argue that CERT or the US/EU courts are anything but independent and objective?
For what it's worth [broken link removed] supporting the claim that Microsoft may not be giving consumers value for money compared to other software vendors.
I don't think that anybody can argue that CERT or the US/EU courts are anything but independent and objective?