Mobile Phone Companies - Good / Bad ?

[Cache]

Ah sorry about that.

Have never had to go all the way up before, but actually i will do so more often, after getting such a good response.

[Stuart*]

There wasn't a provider called "Cellnet" in 2001.

OK "BT Cellnet" in April 2001.

Just a second - if one of the facts you're reproducing is clearly incorrect, would it not be the correct thing to do to withdraw your comment?

You can't press your point if your source material is patently wrong.

I’m not sure you have a valid case for asking me to withdraw my post there, Gav, as there is nothing ‘patently wrong’ in light of the following:

The wikipedia information I quoted aims to detail the reallocation of UK phone codes, not provide a history of the business names used by various service providers. In the entry made for code ‘0850’ they were correct that it had been allocated to Cellnet. The fact that they didn’t expand further into any detail about the operator’s later name or ownership was irrelevant to the subject and more than provided for by a link to such topics on the same page.

I quoted a source of information regarding dates of the renumbering of UK mobile services and invited Nick to amend it, if he had a better source, as it seemed to disgree with his earlier statement. I note that he hasn’t: I can therefore only assume that what was stated on wikipedia was correct.

After searching t’internet, I cannot find any other information to prove the case either way regarding Nick’s claim that all changes happened on the same day. I still await his response, and if necessary, for him to correct the wikipedia entry. Of course, if he does so, with supporting evidence other than just stating "I was there", then I will happily concede that the information I referred to was incorrect.

Wikipedia is supposed to be there for everyone's benefit as a first port of call, and a link to other information, not a talking point for inaccuracies. If people aren't prepared to collaborate on making the information accurate then they are hardly in a position to criticise it!

[Sput]

Was it REALLY easier for you to have typed all that rather than just say "sorry, my bad, I was wrong"? Come to think of it, you never do that but instead always wheel out an excuse as to why you're wrong. You tend to see it as a justification but it not. You're a lot like the posh spaz I work with.

Oh and one of the MAIN points about wikipedia is the debate about whether having it open to anyone is a strength or a weakness.*

*oh and the small text really gets on my wick. It makes you seem really passive-aggressive, like someone who mutters under their breath but too ineptly so everyone can hear it.

[Jovis]

I quoted a source of information regarding dates of the renumbering of UK mobile services and invited Nick to amend it, if he had a better source, as it seemed to disgree with his earlier statement. I note that he hasn’t: I can therefore only assume that what was stated on wikipedia was correct.

Why you idiot? I often see obvious and not so obvious errors on Wikipedia, I don't bother changing it! And Nick may not even visit the website, so why should he feel it's his duty to edit it just to satisfy a request from you?

[Stuart*]

Was it REALLY easier for you to have typed all that rather than just say "sorry, my bad, I was wrong"?

No! I stand by the information I posted and the only person I asked to verify or refute that hasn’t come forward with a reply.

Come to think of it, you never do that but instead always wheel out an excuse as to why you're wrong. You tend to see it as a justification but it not.

You are assuming I have forwarded incorrect information – that has yet to be challenged effectively. See above.

You're a lot like the posh spaz I work with

I pity your colleagues at work if that’s how you refer to some people.

oh and the small text really gets on my wick. It makes you seem really passive-aggressive, like someone who mutters under their breath but too ineptly so everyone can hear it.*

That amuses me!

[Sput]

Here's what happened as I see it, feel free to point out my idiocy

1. Someone says they had the same number since 1999
2. You said they couldn't have
3. They confirmed that they did.
4. TWO MORE people confirmed that it's possible
5. Nick posted his knowledge which ALSO confirmed it's possible

So to summarise, you tried to be a smartarse and were smacked down neatly and politely but decided to try and drag it out by providing excuses for your wrongness like "wikipedia told me so" but if you'd known anything in the first place you wouldn't have needed to check it. You then went on about the PRECISE DATE that numbers changed despite it not mattering in the original context.

I also LOVE that you've basically blamed people for your wrongness because they didn't bother serving the facts to you on a silver platter ahead of you being wrong about them!

[Nick Harvey]

I love the way Wanker*Plymouth seems to have decided that it's all my fault that Wikipedia is wrong.

I have published my views on how wrong Wikipedia is in various previous threads, over various recent years.

I simply cannot comprehend a website that gives definitions of things which may, or may not, be correct. Did it start as some sort of quiz game?

As far as I'm concerned, it has to be either black or white, no shades of grey. If I go over there and put my name to the correction of one definition, then I'd feel responsible for any other definitions which were, subsequently, found to be wrong. I shall, therefore, not be setting foot over there.

So you can shove that response, Plymouth, up your arsehole!

[Stuart*]

Here's what happened as I see it, feel free to point out my idiocy

I will obviously have to, since you seem unable to spot the bleedin' obvious yourself…

1. Someone says they had the same number since 1999
2. You said they couldn't have

I believe I asked if they were sure…I didn’t say they couldn’t! (I’ve underlined the important bits):

Are you sure it's *exactly* the same number? Most 07x mobile numbers didn't come into existence until April 2001. Orange numbers were generally in the 09xx range before that date.

3. They confirmed that they did.
4. TWO MORE people confirmed that it's possible

I’m not sure where I’m denying the existence of 07x numbers before April 2001 here? I had one myself!

You then continue to allow your argument to fall apart by saying...

5. Nick posted his knowledge which ALSO confirmed it's possible

He did indeed, but also made an assertion that:

All the old mobile numbers changed on 28th April 2001; not a day before and not a day later. Trust me, I was there.

You then went on about the PRECISE DATE that numbers changed despite it not mattering in the original context.

No, Nick made a statement about a precise date. I challenged it and he hasn't refuted it.

I also LOVE that you've basically blamed people for your wrongness because they didn't bother serving the facts to you on a silver platter ahead of you being wrong about them!

I haven’t blamed anyone for anything. I sought information from a readily available source and I haven’t been offered any information to dispute it.

Your hyperbole in prose is lost on Metropol, Professor Sput.
Merry Christmas x x

[Sput]

For the bit before where you quoted my point 5, you seem to be saying you know better than the person whose number it was. That's where your smart-arsery backfired and it's pretty obvious you fell back to something even more pedantic to try and appear less wrong by arguing about the exact date, which has even less relevance than your original comment, which really didn't matter at all.

If people aren't prepared to collaborate on making the information accurate then they are hardly in a position to criticise it!

Sounds an awful lot like you're blaming Nick for not making sure YOUR source of information (your choice of which is terrible, it's wikipedia for crying out loud!) is correct. I'd say those that aren't involved in publishing information are in the PERFECT position to criticise it.

Your hyperbole in prose is lost on Metropol, Professor Sput.
Merry Christmas x x

And your bullshit in forums doesn't mask your tossery, nor does big writing make things true. If you stopped reading tabloids you might realise that.

[Stuart*]

For the bit before where you quoted my point 5, you seem to be saying you know better than the person whose number it was.

I’m not sure from where you developed that idea, honestly.

That's where your smart-arsery backfired and it's pretty obvious you fell back to something even more pedantic to try and appear less wrong by arguing about the exact date, which has even less relevance than your original comment, which really didn't matter at all.

No, Sputty, there are no inaccuracies in my original question - or the explanations I've provided about the data I sourced as a result of subsequent enquiries. They still support my original point.

Is it just your desire to aggravate every thread I post in?

Sounds an awful lot like you're blaming Nick for not making sure YOUR source of information (your choice of which is terrible, it's wikipedia for crying out loud!) is correct. I'd say those that aren't involved in publishing information are in the PERFECT position to criticise it.

I asked Nick to substantiate his information. I notice you aren't pestering him.

And your bullshit in forums doesn't mask your tossery, nor does big writing make things true. If you stopped reading tabloids you might realise that.

Sleep it off, Sputty!

Just to be pedantic: fora is the plural of a forum!

[cdd]

Just to be pedeantic: fora is the plural of a forum!

Just to be pedantic: pedantic is spelt "pedantic".

Fun focussing on minutae, isn't it? Really feels like a valuable use of time.