OT - First DAB+-upgradeable radio

Andy Burns wrote:
On 20/07/2007 11:51, Rob wrote:

Pleased to see this:
http://www.pure.com/ecoplus/

So the saving (whether switched on, or turned off) is about 5W,
multiply that by 24x365 equals 43.8kWh,
at 9p/unit that'll save under £4 worth of planet per year,
better than nothing, but hardly worth "green" bragging rights.


I think you're missing two points:

1. It's a relatively large increase in efficiency, and I think it's
entirely appropriate that Pure highlight that fact;

2. You forgot to multiply the potential saving by 5 million in the UK
alone. DAB radios have gone some way to boosting ElecCo's UK profits at
the very least.

Of course, the landfill and waste that might follow from discarded 'old'
DAB radios doesn't bear thinking about. And the gross production costs
(of DAB in general) in environmental and social terms aren't known.

Rob

Paul D.Smith wrote:
Receivers that are DAB+-upgradeable (or ones that will support it
natively once they've finished the software) are using a new DAB
receiver chip which reduces the power consumption relative to
previous DAB receiver chips by a factor of 7 - this is something
that the chip manufacturer, Frontier-Silicon, has managed to
achieve, not Pure Digital. The reduction in power is due to the new
chip using smaller transistors so the chip voltages are lower, and
they've moved external memory onto the chip itself to eliminate
power consumption due to bus transfers to external memory.

Good to hear but you can't blame Pure for touting the fact that they
at least are using this new chip ;-).


Yeah, there's nothing wrong with promoting the feature, although it looks
like they might have trademarked this "ecoplus" thing that they're using,
when in reality they're just taking advantage of the chip's better power
consumption (and shaving a bit of cardboard off the packaging or something),
and this chip will probably be used in 70% of all DAB receivers in the shops
in the next year (Frontier-Silicon produces 70% of all the chips that go in
DAB receivers today, and this is their new chip to replace the old one, and
if anything their market share will go up)...


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Paul D.Smith wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote in message
...
I thought some people might be interested to know that the first DAB+
upgradeable (clock) radio has been released:

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ar...able-radio.php

...snip...

Interesting to see that they are expected to milk another 10-15quid
from consumers for the upgrade.


I made a mistake in the original article, and the cost of upgrading should
have been 10 - 15 euros, not £10 - £15.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

snip

I made a mistake in the original article, and the cost of upgrading should
have been 10 - 15 euros, not £10 - £15.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:39:00 +0000, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

snip

I made a mistake in the original article, and the cost of upgrading should
have been 10 - 15 euros, not £10 - £15.



Your statement that the website does not mention DAB+ is also incorrect, as
I pointed out to you in alt.radio.digital yesterday. Any reason you
persist with this lie?

This also places your conspiracy-theorist rant on even shakier ground.

Sean Inglis wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:39:00 +0000, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

snip

I made a mistake in the original article, and the cost of upgrading
should have been 10 - 15 euros, not £10 - £15.



Your statement that the website does not mention DAB+ is also
incorrect,


I've just looked, and they have added the following sentence to this page:

http://www.pure.com/Products/Product...PageType=Specs

"Future upgrade supported for DAB+."

I wouldn't have written what I did if that sentence had been on one of the
web pages for the product, so they must have added it since. Also, I
exchanged a number of emails with the person in charge of marketing at Pure
on Friday, so if that sentence was there why didn't he mention it in the
emails?

Anyway, I will edit my article after I've finished writing this post - you
see, unlike the DAB industry, I try to be as honest as I can.


as I pointed out to you in alt.radio.digital yesterday.
Any reason you persist with this lie?


How sneaky can you get, eh? You know full well that you're in my killfile (2
of your email addresses are in my killfile, but the one you're posting with
now isn't, hence why I can see this post), so what you've just said is
accusing me of being deceitful, because you're making out that I already
knew that Pure's website had the above sentence on it, whereas you actually
knew that I hadn't seen you point this out - and don't flatter yourself that
I look for your posts on Google Groups, because I very rarely do.

But as you've shown your true colours here, I have to wonder how many times
you've accused me of being dishonest before without me seeing you write it,
so congratulations, I'm going to remove your email addresses from my
killfile, so that you can't do this sneaky ****'s trick again.


This also places your conspiracy-theorist rant on even shakier ground.


No, even taking the addition of the above sentence about DAB+ into
consideration, this is about the smallest concession they could have made,
because this product's upgradeability to DAB+ is actually one of its main
features, so if they weren't trying to hide the information it would be
mentioned on the Intro and Features pages, not hidden away on the Specs page
which virtually only the technical people will look at....


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Paul D.Smith wrote:
Receivers that are DAB+-upgradeable (or ones that will support it
natively once they've finished the software) are using a new DAB
receiver chip which reduces the power consumption relative to
previous DAB receiver chips by a factor of 7 - this is something
that the chip manufacturer, Frontier-Silicon, has managed to
achieve, not Pure Digital. The reduction in power is due to the new
chip using smaller transistors so the chip voltages are lower, and
they've moved external memory onto the chip itself to eliminate
power consumption due to bus transfers to external memory.
Good to hear but you can't blame Pure for touting the fact that they
at least are using this new chip ;-).


Yeah, there's nothing wrong with promoting the feature, although it looks
like they might have trademarked this "ecoplus" thing that they're using,
when in reality they're just taking advantage of the chip's better power
consumption (and shaving a bit of cardboard off the packaging or something),
and this chip will probably be used in 70% of all DAB receivers in the shops
in the next year (Frontier-Silicon produces 70% of all the chips that go in
DAB receivers today, and this is their new chip to replace the old one, and
if anything their market share will go up)...


First rule of marketing: state the obvious because the competition may
not bother.

On Jul 22, 8:06 pm, "DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote:
Sean Inglis wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:39:00 +0000, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

snip

I made a mistake in the original article, and the cost of upgrading
should have been 10 - 15 euros, not £10 - £15.

Your statement that the website does not mention DAB+ is also
incorrect,

I've just looked, and they have added the following sentence to this page:

http://www.pure.com/Products/Product...PageType=Specs

"Future upgrade supported for DAB+."

I wouldn't have written what I did if that sentence had been on one of the
web pages for the product, so they must have added it since. Also, I
exchanged a number of emails with the person in charge of marketing at Pure
on Friday, so if that sentence was there why didn't he mention it in the
emails?

Anyway, I will edit my article after I've finished writing this post - you
see, unlike the DAB industry, I try to be as honest as I can.


Your definition of "honesty" is flexible, depending on how it best
serves your own interests, despite your protestations.

I have no way of knowing why the conversation you claim to have had
with a Pure marketing executive on Friday failed to mention it.
Perhaps they did add it afterwards, but until you can demonstrate
otherwise, I find it far more likely that either you intended to spin
it, or didn't read it properly and charged in. Perhaps I'll
investigate myself and rest assured that I'll post either way.


as I pointed out to you in alt.radio.digital yesterday.
Any reason you persist with this lie?

How sneaky can you get, eh? You know full well that you're in my killfile (2
of your email addresses are in my killfile, but the one you're posting with
now isn't, hence why I can see this post), so what you've just said is
accusing me of being deceitful, because you're making out that I already
knew that Pure's website had the above sentence on it, whereas you actually
knew that I hadn't seen you point this out - and don't flatter yourself that
I look for your posts on Google Groups, because I very rarely do.


1) No one, except you, knows what's in your killfile. I post
regardless of your latest ostentatious *PLONK* or *UNPLONK* as I've
told you before. I have no way of knowing what you see and don't see,
and I won't pander to it either way.

2) You *do* look for my posts on Google groups (as you admit above),
along with others, specifically so you can make a public display of
ignoring posts that distress you, but cherry-pick the one's you think
you can "win".

3) I post under "Sean Inglis" and "seani", no change there. If you had
any competence or desire to filter out, you could easily do it, but
you prefer to throw around accusations that people try to circumvent
your killfile, remember?

Incidentally, any reason you keep changing your own handle, as opposed
to using "Steve Green"?

But as you've shown your true colours here, I have to wonder how many times
you've accused me of being dishonest before without me seeing you write it,
so congratulations, I'm going to remove your email addresses from my
killfile, so that you can't do this sneaky ****'s trick again.


True colours? ROFL! The email address changed because my NNTP provider
changed and they have a different policy on email address use (you
could spend some of the budget you have for Google-based character
assassination on understanding NNTP headers to check).

And there's nothing "sneaky" about it; I told you my posts ignore your
claimed killfill - you're caught out by your own bizarre twisting, you
dopey little ****er.

This also places your conspiracy-theorist rant on even shakier ground.

No, even taking the addition of the above sentence about DAB+ into
consideration, this is about the smallest concession they could have made,
because this product's upgradeability to DAB+ is actually one of its main
features, so if they weren't trying to hide the information it would be
mentioned on the Intro and Features pages, not hidden away on the Specs page
which virtually only the technical people will look at....


I'll address this in alt.radio.digital, along with a number of your
other claims in due course.

seani wrote:
On Jul 22, 8:06 pm, "DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote:
Sean Inglis wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:39:00 +0000, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

snip

I made a mistake in the original article, and the cost of upgrading
should have been 10 - 15 euros, not £10 - £15.

Your statement that the website does not mention DAB+ is also
incorrect,

I've just looked, and they have added the following sentence to this
page:

http://www.pure.com/Products/Product...PageType=Specs

"Future upgrade supported for DAB+."

I wouldn't have written what I did if that sentence had been on one
of the web pages for the product, so they must have added it since.
Also, I exchanged a number of emails with the person in charge of
marketing at Pure on Friday, so if that sentence was there why
didn't he mention it in the emails?

Anyway, I will edit my article after I've finished writing this post
- you see, unlike the DAB industry, I try to be as honest as I can.


Your definition of "honesty" is flexible, depending on how it best
serves your own interests, despite your protestations.


Yes, my definition of "honesty/dishonesty" is definitely flexible, and that
is because there are shades of grey, such as the example that this thread is
about, where Pure are not not being *completely* dishonest about their new
product being upgradeable to DAB+, but they are still effectively hiding
this information from the most important web pages that the vast majority of
people will actually look at, which are the Into and Features pages. The
Tech page will predominantly read by people like you and I, who've got a
technical background and know what Band III and L-band are and so forth -
things like that mean nothing to non-technical people.


I have no way of knowing why the conversation you claim to have had
with a Pure marketing executive on Friday failed to mention it.
Perhaps they did add it afterwards, but until you can demonstrate
otherwise, I find it far more likely that either you intended to spin
it, or didn't read it properly and charged in. Perhaps I'll
investigate myself and rest assured that I'll post either way.


Okay, I've looked into this myself, and it looks like the sentence "Future
upgrade supported for DAB+." *might* have already been there when I wrote
what I did, although it is impossible to say one way or the other - unless
someone actually saved the web pages to their hard drive or whether a cache
of the page from Friday or before can be found via Google, but I don't know
how to find such a page.

However, even if that sentence was included, your accusation here is that
I've acted dishonestly, but I completely refute that because I did look at
the web pages for the product, and if I did miss that sentence then it is
down to human error, NOT dishonesty NOR spinning. I DID mention that the
information was available in the factsheet for the product, so if I was
going to act dishonestly, why did I mention that it was mentioned in the
factsheet at all?

And here is the text from an email that I sent to someone in the PR
department at Pure on Friday, and I also copied the text into an email I
sent to the person in charge of marketing at Pu

"Okay, thanks for the information.

It's better than I initially thought, because you are indicating that it can
be upgraded to DAB+, but at the end of the day you're still trying to hide
this information from consumers, because the information isn't on any of the
web pages for the product, and it's just hidden away right at the bottom of
the factsheet, which I bet very few people actually download because all of
the information is also on the web pages. Also, people in a shop don't get
to see the box of the product, so as far as they're aware this product will
not be upgradeable to DAB+.

So if you're going to be open and honest about the issue of DAB+
upgradeability (which is what consumers would want you to be), I think you
need to put this information in a prominent place on the web pages for the
product (at the very least it should be on the features page...) and have a
label on the product itself to say that it can be upgraded or some way for
consumers to know that it can be upgraded."

There's no sensitive information in the email that that text is copied from
(the one to the person in the PR department - which includes previous
replies from people in the PR department at Pure), so I don't think Pure
would mind me forwarding it to you, but I definitely don't think I should
have to do that just to disprove the accusations of someone on Usenet such
as yourself who has had an enormous grudge against me for about the last 4
years or so.

And after I'd sent the above text in emails, I received another 3 or maybe 4
emails from the person in charge of marketing at Pure on Friday, and none of
them mentioned that the information was on the website. I did make an error
in the original article, which was that I originally said that the cost of
the upgrade would likely be £10 - £15, when in fact I should have put euros.
Now, if I was trying to hide information, why did I then reply to my own
post saing this:

"I made a mistake in the original article, and the cost of upgrading should
have been 10 - 15 euros, not £10 - £15."

And don't try to make out that you haven't seen that, because you replied to
the post in which I wrote that. Come on, if I'm so dishonest, why did I go
to the trouble of posting something on here (twice if you actually read the
thread) that actually shows that I've made an error?

And even if that sentence was already on the Specs page, this doesn't alter
the main point I was making, which is that Pure is not being anywhere near
as honest as it could be about this product's ability to be upgraded to
DAB+. If it were being honest about this it would be mentioned on the Into
and Features pages for the product. Its upgradeability to DAB+ is ITS MAIN
SELLING POINT, and yet Pure doesn't even see fit to mention this on its
Features page:

http://www.pure.com/Products/Product...eType=Features

even though they do mention the following insignificant features:

Intellitext - complete waste of time
Textscan - complete waste of time
Light sensor - big deal
Headphone socket - hardly a big deal on an alarm clock

And here's the press release for the product:

http://www.pure.com/Releases/Release.asp?ID=285

NO mentions of DAB+ at all.

The main point I made was this:

"Ultimately, this hiding of information about DAB+ is designed to achieve
one thing and one thing alone: to keep the sales of to-be-obsolete DAB
radios as strong as possible over the next year or so until such a time as
the majority of "DAB" receivers in the shops support DAB+ as standard -- by
then the con will be complete, and a couple of million or so people will
have unwittingly bought DAB radios without knowing that they're buying a
product that won't be able to receive some of the stations that will launch
just a couple of years or so after they've bought it."

And that still stands no matter whether I didn't spot that sentence or
whether it wasn't there in the first place. For example, just do a quick
search on Google for articles about the Pure Siesta and see how many have
highlighted the fact that it can be upgraded to DAB+. I couldn't find a
single one. The thing that has been siezed upon is that it consumes far less
power than existing DAB radios, which basically proves my point, because
people who convert press releases into web pages articles about new products
will look at the things that are being pushed, which for the Siesta is that
it is greener than other DAB radios, and because the thing about DAB+ is
relegated to a tiny mention on the Specs page or right at the bottom of the
factsheet, nobody has picked up on this.



as I pointed out to you in alt.radio.digital yesterday.
Any reason you persist with this lie?

How sneaky can you get, eh? You know full well that you're in my
killfile (2 of your email addresses are in my killfile, but the one
you're posting with now isn't, hence why I can see this post), so
what you've just said is accusing me of being deceitful, because
you're making out that I already knew that Pure's website had the
above sentence on it, whereas you actually knew that I hadn't seen
you point this out - and don't flatter yourself that I look for your
posts on Google Groups, because I very rarely do.


1) No one, except you, knows what's in your killfile. I post
regardless of your latest ostentatious *PLONK* or *UNPLONK* as I've
told you before. I have no way of knowing what you see and don't see,
and I won't pander to it either way.


Considering that you've mentioned on numerous occasions how I supposedly go
onto Google Groups to circumvent my own killfile even though I've told you
on many occasions not to flatter yourself, and in reality I rarely do this,
you actually know full well that some of your email addresses are in my
killfile.

Also, as you are aware that some of your email addresses are (were) in my
killfile, it is highly dishonest to point out that you'd already brought
this to my attention, because that was solely intended to make me look
dishonest.

Basically, your true colours have been revealed, and I have to wonder how
many times you've done this kind of thing on other NGs.


2) You *do* look for my posts on Google groups (as you admit above),


As I've pointed out to you on many occasions, I very rarely look on Google
Groups, and the only time I would EVER actually look for your posts would be
if an argument had started between us. For example, I sometimes see your
posts anyway when people reply to your posts, and then I may go onto Google
Groups and reply to your latest set of baseless accusations.


along with others, specifically so you can make a public display of
ignoring posts that distress you, but cherry-pick the one's you think
you can "win".


My killfile is actually an extremely effective time saver. For example, if
you had have posted using one of your emails that is in my killfile I
wouldn't now have wasted an hour or however long it has taken me up to now
to write this post. The same goes for people like Richard L and Michael
Kenworthamsted and other buffoons whose only reason for posting on
alt.radio.digital is to wind me up. That is also why I do say *plonk* when I
put someone into my killfile, because the reason for putting someone in
there is to cut off their trolling oxygen, and the sooner they realise
they're in my killfile the sooner they will just move on.


3) I post under "Sean Inglis" and "seani", no change there. If you had
any competence or desire to filter out, you could easily do it, but
you prefer to throw around accusations that people try to circumvent
your killfile, remember?


I did quickly look at trying to do this in OE, but it didn't look all that
straight forward so didn't bother, whereas adding email addresses to my
killfile is extremely quick and effective, because you're the only person
that seems to use so many frigging email addresses that even though I had 2
of your email addresses in my killfile I still saw the one from which you
sent the post I'm replying to.


Incidentally, any reason you keep changing your own handle, as opposed
to using "Steve Green"?


I've never intentionally posted under my real name - I think I have posted
under my real name on a couple of occasions by accident.

Basically, if you're going to have a go at me for not using my real name,
just have a quick look about you, because I'd say that the majority of
people don't use their real name when posting on Usenet.


But as you've shown your true colours here, I have to wonder how
many times you've accused me of being dishonest before without me
seeing you write it, so congratulations, I'm going to remove your
email addresses from my killfile, so that you can't do this sneaky
****'s trick again.


True colours? ROFL!


Your true colours that I was reffering to was that you posted this:

"Your statement that the website does not mention DAB+ is also incorrect,
as
I pointed out to you in alt.radio.digital yesterday. Any reason you
persist with this lie?."

Your true colours are that despite knowing that you are in my killfile the
wording you used suggested that I knew that you had pointed out this
correction and that I had failed to correct my website. You were therefore
acting highly dishonestly.


The email address changed because my NNTP provider
changed and they have a different policy on email address use (you
could spend some of the budget you have for Google-based character
assassination on understanding NNTP headers to check).


I couldn't care less what changed. The fact of the matter is that if I'd
have done what you actually did, you would now be castigating me for being
extremely dishonest!!!!!!!

Double standards.


And there's nothing "sneaky" about it; I told you my posts ignore your
claimed killfill - you're caught out by your own bizarre twisting, you
dopey little ****er.


Let me remind you what you wrote, and remember that you knew that you're in
my killfile:

"Your statement that the website does not mention DAB+ is also incorrect, as
I pointed out to you in alt.radio.digital yesterday. Any reason you
persist with this lie?"

The fact that you say that you ignore the fact that you're in my killfile
really just goes to show what a sneaky **** you are.


This also places your conspiracy-theorist rant on even shakier
ground.

No, even taking the addition of the above sentence about DAB+ into
consideration, this is about the smallest concession they could have
made, because this product's upgradeability to DAB+ is actually one
of its main features, so if they weren't trying to hide the
information it would be mentioned on the Intro and Features pages,
not hidden away on the Specs page which virtually only the technical
people will look at....


I'll address this in alt.radio.digital, along with a number of your
other claims in due course.


And no doubt you expect me to waste even more of my time replying to even
more of your pathetic accusations just because of this long-standing grudge
you've got against me?



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 14:21:33 +0000, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

seani wrote:
On Jul 22, 8:06 pm, "DAB sounds worse than FM" [email protected] wrote:
Sean Inglis wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:39:00 +0000, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

snip

I made a mistake in the original article, and the cost of upgrading
should have been 10 - 15 euros, not £10 - £15.

Your statement that the website does not mention DAB+ is also
incorrect,

I've just looked, and they have added the following sentence to this
page:

http://www.pure.com/Products/Product...PageType=Specs

"Future upgrade supported for DAB+."

I wouldn't have written what I did if that sentence had been on one
of the web pages for the product, so they must have added it since.
Also, I exchanged a number of emails with the person in charge of
marketing at Pure on Friday, so if that sentence was there why
didn't he mention it in the emails?

Anyway, I will edit my article after I've finished writing this post
- you see, unlike the DAB industry, I try to be as honest as I can.


Your definition of "honesty" is flexible, depending on how it best
serves your own interests, despite your protestations.


Yes, my definition of "honesty/dishonesty" is definitely flexible, and that
is because there are shades of grey, such as the example that this thread is

There is no doubt in my mind that there are many "shades of grey", many
subjective opinions, and many honestly held beliefs.

But apparently we should only exercise moderation and the benefit of the
doubt when judging your own rants: it's perfectly acceptable for *you* to
classify others as liars for your own ends.


Features pages. The Tech page will predominantly read by people like you
and I, who've got a technical background and know what Band III and
L-band are and so forth - things like that mean nothing to non-technical
people.


Balls.

In that case why should the term "DAB+" mean anything at all to the same
audience?


I have no way of knowing why the conversation you claim to have had
with a Pure marketing executive on Friday failed to mention it.
Perhaps they did add it afterwards, but until you can demonstrate
otherwise, I find it far more likely that either you intended to spin
it, or didn't read it properly and charged in. Perhaps I'll
investigate myself and rest assured that I'll post either way.


Okay, I've looked into this myself, and it looks like the sentence "Future
upgrade supported for DAB+." *might* have already been there when I wrote
what I did, although it is impossible to say one way or the other - unless
someone actually saved the web pages to their hard drive or whether a cache
of the page from Friday or before can be found via Google, but I don't know
how to find such a page.


You didn't check your facts properly and steamed in. As it happens, the
PDF reflects the content of the web-pages. Is it your contention that they
also amended and reformatted the PDF? It's obvious it was always there and
you didn't check properly or elected to ignore it.

However, even if that sentence was included, your accusation here is that
I've acted dishonestly, but I completely refute that because I did look at
the web pages for the product, and if I did miss that sentence then it is
down to human error, NOT dishonesty NOR spinning. I DID mention that the
information was available in the factsheet for the product, so if I was
going to act dishonestly, why did I mention that it was mentioned in the
factsheet at all?


So you keep saying, and expecting me to accept. It certainly isn't the
standard you judge others by though, is it?

[snip irrelevance]

Now, if I was trying to hide information,
why did I then reply to my own post saing this:

"I made a mistake in the original article, and the cost of upgrading
should have been 10 - 15 euros, not £10 - £15."


Because it doesn't harm your cause to admit the error.

And don't try to make out that you haven't seen that, because you
replied to the post in which I wrote that. Come on, if I'm so dishonest,
why did I go to the trouble of posting something on here (twice if you
actually read the thread) that actually shows that I've made an error?

And even if that sentence was already on the Specs page, this doesn't
alter the main point I was making, which is that Pure is not being
anywhere near as honest as it could be about this product's ability to
be upgraded to DAB+. If it were being honest about this it would be
mentioned on the Into and Features pages for the product. Its
upgradeability to DAB+ is ITS MAIN SELLING POINT, and yet Pure doesn't
even see fit to mention this on its Features page:

http://www.pure.com/Products/Product...eType=Features

even though they do mention the following insignificant features:

Intellitext - complete waste of time
Textscan - complete waste of time
Light sensor - big deal
Headphone socket - hardly a big deal on an alarm clock


Here we go again. They're irrelevant to *you* you self-centred little
****, not everyone else.

Why *should* they push the fact that an upgrade few people will understand
the significance of may be supported to allow access to a system that may
or may not be used at some unspecified point in the future?


How sneaky can you get, eh? You know full well that you're in my
killfile (2 of your email addresses are in my killfile, but the one
you're posting with now isn't, hence why I can see this post), so what
you've just said is accusing me of being deceitful, because you're
making out that I already knew that Pure's website had the above
sentence on it, whereas you actually knew that I hadn't seen you point
this out - and don't flatter yourself that I look for your posts on
Google Groups, because I very rarely do.


1) No one, except you, knows what's in your killfile. I post regardless
of your latest ostentatious *PLONK* or *UNPLONK* as I've told you
before. I have no way of knowing what you see and don't see, and I
won't pander to it either way.


Considering that you've mentioned on numerous occasions how I supposedly
go onto Google Groups to circumvent my own killfile even though I've
told you on many occasions not to flatter yourself, and in reality I
rarely do this, you actually know full well that some of your email
addresses are in my killfile.

Also, as you are aware that some of your email addresses are (were) in
my killfile, it is highly dishonest to point out that you'd already
brought this to my attention, because that was solely intended to make
me look dishonest.

Basically, your true colours have been revealed, and I have to wonder
how many times you've done this kind of thing on other NGs.


How many more times:

* I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR KILLFILE

* I WILL RESPOND TO YOUR POSTS WHEN I FEEL IT'S JUSTIFIED WHETHER I'M
"KILL-FILED" OR NOT

Have you got the ****ing message yet?

I never have and never will undertake to refrain from responding to any of
your posts, whether you say you've kill-filed or not. It just doesn't make
an iota of difference to me.

You're horribly confused about the purpose of a killfile; publicly
*plonk*ing someone isn't a switch you throw guaranteeing that you can rant
unchallenged. Tough ****, eh?



My killfile is actually an extremely effective time saver. For example,
if you had have posted using one of your emails that is in my killfile I
wouldn't now have wasted an hour or however long it has taken me up to
now to write this post. The same goes for people like Richard L and
Michael Kenworthamsted and other buffoons whose only reason for posting
on alt.radio.digital is to wind me up. That is also why I do say *plonk*
when I put someone into my killfile, because the reason for putting
someone in there is to cut off their trolling oxygen, and the sooner
they realise they're in my killfile the sooner they will just move on.


Yet more evidence you're a completely self-obsessed solipsist arsehole.



3) I post under "Sean Inglis" and "seani", no change there. If you had
any competence or desire to filter out, you could easily do it, but you
prefer to throw around accusations that people try to circumvent your
killfile, remember?


I did quickly look at trying to do this in OE, but it didn't look all
that straight forward so didn't bother, whereas adding email addresses
to my killfile is extremely quick and effective, because you're the only
person that seems to use so many frigging email addresses that even
though I had 2 of your email addresses in my killfile I still saw the
one from which you sent the post I'm replying to.


Incidentally, any reason you keep changing your own handle, as opposed
to using "Steve Green"?


I've never intentionally posted under my real name - I think I have
posted under my real name on a couple of occasions by accident.

Basically, if you're going to have a go at me for not using my real
name, just have a quick look about you, because I'd say that the
majority of people don't use their real name when posting on Usenet.


The majority of people don't engage in grubby vendettas and muckraking,
and throwing accusations left, right and center.



Let me remind you what you wrote, and remember that you knew that you're
in my killfile:

I don't *know* anything of the sort, and even if I did, I DON'T ****ING
CARE. Your killfile is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to me. Got the picture yet?


"Your statement that the website does not mention DAB+ is also
incorrect, as I pointed out to you in alt.radio.digital yesterday. Any
reason you persist with this lie?"

The fact that you say that you ignore the fact that you're in my
killfile really just goes to show what a sneaky **** you are.


Sigh.


And no doubt you expect me to waste even more of my time replying to
even more of your pathetic accusations just because of this
long-standing grudge you've got against me?

Live by the sword etc., Terry. Try exercising some moderation of your own.