Glad that I phoned OpenWorld
Mark Booth
I phoned up OpenWorld order management help-desk.
I explained to them that I had a provisional booking for Wednesday, but
had received neither notification of a successful line test, nor my
Welcome pack. They went away, and after five minutes came back with
"Sorry about the lack of welcome pack, and the engineers have an
appointment to see you tomorrow morning".
So if I hadn't checked they could have arrived when I had not expected
it, and left being unable to install anything. Well at least I know now,
and it is reassuring to know that my line passed the tests.
Take care,
Mark..........
--
If the world were an oyster, it would be mine.......
phil evans
with no bugger at home to see him. To his credit he rang me in work to
explain he was there and obviously struggling. My "welcome pack will
include a confirmed appointment date"- it says here on a letter dated
9/10/00. At the mo my welcome pack is not here 5 months after I
pre-registered, 21 days since my confirmed order and 3 days behind the
engineer and counting. I haven't moved so where the hell is it :(
--
Phil
Mark Booth <mark...@anang.com> wrote in message
news:xQu5lMCY0X$5E...@anang.com...
Steven
!!!
Still got no SEnce out of Bloody Telecom
Im ready to quit them in favour of Atlantic FRA if they dont pull there
finger out broadband or no broadband
"phil evans" <phil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8tkjbt$4td$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
Mark Booth
2000, W T Pooh <w...@pooh.corner> writes
>Today, 5 days after my 'preferred installation date' I received a
>'welcome pack'. The letter, in said pack, told me that an engineer
>would call on Monday (yesterday) and that this was my preferred date.
>It was not and he did not.
Well my installation went ahead today, and I have the line splitter
(master socket) and 'stingray' physically installed. I have even seen
the thing working on the engineers laptop, all I need to do now is
completely re-install my machine so that I have a 'compatible' operating
system. I still have no 'welcome pack', not that I particularly want
one, but expect to have OpenWorld up and running as soon as my new hard
disk arrives.
Note that I tried to install the Alcatel Speed Touch drivers on Win95
but it does actually fail, with a Severe error, saying that it would
only work on Windows 98 - not true, since I have been assured by someone
reliable that it works on Windows 2000.
> I telephoned Orders and was told that an engineer would call
>me before 5 pm today. He did not.
> I have just telephoned Orders again and was told that they
>(orders) would call me tomorrow. I find this a little hard to believe.
>Someone in orders is lying to me as I was informed in my first call to
>them that they were unable to make outgoing calls.
Don't hold your breath.
Mark Booth
2000, W T Pooh <w...@pooh.corner> writes
I guessed that I probably wasn't. *8')
> It is my ultimate goal to get the thing running under Linux (USB) how
>do you rate my chances :-)
Yes, eventually I would like to get the stingray connected to a a
diskless PC acting as a router. The Linux router project would be ideal
for this if Alcatel ever get around to doing something about getting
Linux drivers out.
>I am still not withholding breathing.
No, probably wise, you could get rather blue.
Peter Hucker
W T Pooh <w...@pooh.corner> wrote in uk.telecom.broadband:
>Yes LRP does seem to be the way forward, however I, in my usual way,
>am not holding my breath for the drivers.
>
>BT have told me that they will have the exchange fixed on the 12th....
>...of December.
>
>Holding breath,
>turning blue,
>
>W T Pooh
>
>On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:37:14 +0000, Mark Booth <mark...@anang.com>
>wrote:
--
**********************************************************
Mods http://listen.to/petes.mods Naked chicks http://womenare.allhere.com
Pics http://redirect.to/pictures Midis http://listen.to/petes.midi
Funny sounds http://listen.to/petes.sounds
Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.
Mark Booth
2000, Peter Hucker <huc...@btinternet.com> writes
>Lead Replacement Petrol?
Not wanting to get too deeply into this old chestnut but it is easier to
follow news if people reply in Usenet standard format, with replies
after relevant quoted text and irrelevant text removed altogether. I can
understand you being confused but the answer is in the text below:
>W T Pooh <w...@pooh.corner> wrote in uk.telecom.broadband:
>>Yes LRP does seem to be the way forward, however I, in my usual way,
^^^
>>am not holding my breath for the drivers.
>>On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:37:14 +0000, Mark Booth <mark...@anang.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Yes, eventually I would like to get the stingray connected to a a
>>>diskless PC acting as a router. The Linux router project would be ideal
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>for this if Alcatel ever get around to doing something about getting
>>>Linux drivers out.
And just in case you are a heathen who reads news with a proportional
font and the ^^^ don't line up, LRP = Linux Router Project. *8')
LRP is interesting in that it fits on a single floppy disk, requires a
minimal spec machine, loads into Ram and runs from there. You only need
a hard disk if you want to do lots of caching. Personally I would like a
tiny NLX box, no hard disk, a processor under-clocked enough that it
doesn't require a fan for cooling. An almost silent, solid state router
which is about as configurable as you can get.
Mark Booth
2000, W T Pooh <w...@pooh.corner> writes
>wrote:
>>Not wanting to get too deeply into this old chestnut but it is easier to
>>follow news if people reply in Usenet standard format, with replies
>>after relevant quoted text and irrelevant text removed altogether.
>Personally I prefer to see the reply all in one place and not
>interspersed with the text of the previous message.
In the last few years I have seen this quite a lot. It seems strange to
me that in all of the years before that, people saw the utility of
quoting for context, but all of a sudden people are rebelling against
it. I had assumed that it was ignorance and/or laziness so I have tried
to educate where I can, however I wonder if there might be more to it.
>I assume that the
>reader has just read the previous message or is able to find it
>below. I do however respect your opinion.
As do I, but I would be interested to know the reasoning behind this
preference. Personally I like to see the questions before the answers,
and I like to see what people said before a reply to that point.
I have conditioned myself to ignore quoted text unless I need to refer
to it, in which case it is right there in front of me to refer back to.
If someone reads Quoted for context articles by re-reading the quotes
every time then I could see that they might get bored with it, but I
don't understand why anyone would.
I have always believed that spending a minute to proof-read and format
my article or email nicely was worth the saving in time to all of the
people who read the it. Quoting for context saves the reader time by
them not having to scroll down and search for what someone is referring
to and scrolling back up to continue reading. Done badly quoting makes
thing more difficult to read, done well it can make it far easier.
...
>If BT ever pull there fingers out
>and find themselves in a position to install.
Keep badgering them. I dropped off their pre-install list (yes, both of
me *8'), but last month got through to someone who was prepared to
complete the order. Within a month I had my free install up and running.
Martin S.
> In the last few years I have seen this quite a lot. It seems strange
> to me that in all of the years before that, people saw the utility
> of quoting for context, but all of a sudden people are rebelling
> against it. I had assumed that it was ignorance and/or laziness
> so I have tried to educate where I can, however I wonder if there
> might be more to it.
>
I think a large part of this ignorance is caused by the consumerisation
/ commercialisation of the net reducing it to the lowest common
denominator. In the past the Usenet is particular was used in detailed
technical discussions, responding to a message on a point by point
basis was common, even necessary. Today the noise to signal ratio is
so high I feel sure that many posters don't even read the message, they
are responding to only the header.
There is also the fact that most newbies have only ever used M$
software and Outlook top posts.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peter Hucker
How on earth can a newsreader toppost? It is upo to me where I type the text, no matter what
software I use.
--
**********************************************************
Mods http://listen.to/petes.mods Naked chicks http://womenare.allhere.com
Pics http://redirect.to/pictures Midis http://listen.to/petes.midi
Funny sounds http://listen.to/petes.sounds
Your mouse has moved.
Windows must be restarted for this change to take effect.
Joe
news:8upcsl$996$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <CEoVjIBd...@btinternet.com>,
> > In the last few years I have seen this quite a lot. It seems strange
> > to me that in all of the years before that, people saw the utility
> > of quoting for context, but all of a sudden people are rebelling
> > against it. I had assumed that it was ignorance and/or laziness
> > so I have tried to educate where I can, however I wonder if there
> > might be more to it.
"We've done it this way for years, it must be the best way!"
> I think a large part of this ignorance is caused by the consumerisation
> / commercialisation of the net reducing it to the lowest common
> denominator. In the past the Usenet is particular was used in detailed
> technical discussions, responding to a message on a point by point
> basis was common, even necessary. Today the noise to signal ratio is
> so high I feel sure that many posters don't even read the message, they
> are responding to only the header.
Just because you like/dislike a particular method of doing something, it
doesn't make it the right/wrong way. If people want to top post let them do
it; if people want to post their responses point by point, let them do that
too.
> There is also the fact that most newbies have only ever used M$
> software and Outlook top posts.
The poster chooses where they post in the message.
Mark Booth
Joe <j...@noserve.co.uk> writes
>"We've done it this way for years, it must be the best way!"
Well I've never said that, but many others have. I like to have a reason
for my decisions, look at the evidence, weigh up the options. Overall I
feel that usenet and email communicate messages more effectively when
quoting for context.
>Just because you like/dislike a particular method of doing something, it
>doesn't make it the right/wrong way. If people want to top post let them do
>it; if people want to post their responses point by point, let them do that
>too.
Agreed, however it is also the prerogative of the reader to judge
whether an article is worth reading by the format in which it is
presented. Without reading any text I can tell whether an article is
quoted for context or not just from the proportion of different colours
of text.
Many old hands will not bother reading a top-posted article since they
say "If they can't be bothered to write an article properly, I can't be
bothered to read it", while others say "If they can't write an article
in an accepted format then what they have to say cannot be worth
reading". This is rather a draconian attitude but for some people
increasing the proportion of signal to the noise they read is worth the
loss of some potential signal. A similar attitude can be seen of those
who are most eager to help those who wish to learn.
>> There is also the fact that most newbies have only ever used M$
>> software and Outlook top posts.
It is a common misconception that Outlook causes top-posting. All it
does is insert whitespace before the message, and put the cursor at the
top of that whitespace. Most other programs just put the cursor at the
top. What this means is that when an outlook users wants to reply there
is a big space just inviting them to type there. Other programs make you
add your own whitespace, so you might as well move to the appropriate
place before doing so.
>The poster chooses where they post in the message.
And the reader chooses whether to read them. *8')