For your PC needsExt User(Neil J)
23-02-2006, 08:07 PM
.... and I haven't given up. I have emailed the lawyers on NGE's legal panel
querying whether they are happy with NGE's absence of a dispute resolution
process in the event they have a dispute with them, in the hope that they'll
be able to apply pressure.
"Neil J" <neiljenkins@.removethis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:43f1c41b$0$25266$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> This is related to, but not the same as, a posting I have in
aus.computers.
>
> For the benefit of those who know about www.notgoodenough.com.au (NGE),
let
> me tell you my story. Ironically this is a story about how NGE is itself
> what it claims - Not Good Enough.
>
> Not Good Enough is a website that claims to advocate for consumers. It has
> had its fair share of publicity on ACA and is referred to by the ACCC and
> consumer organisations.
>
> A few days ago, I put a posting on its website concerning a complaint I
had
> against a telecommunications carrier. All went well until a horrible
little
> piece called Buffyblue got involved. She brought the thread off topic and
> got shirty with me for reasons which made almost no sense to me. I
> complained about call centre staff in India, and she didn't like what I
said
> about how I view their work culture. She then complained to the website
> admin because I had a second log in id which was unrelated to the issues
we
> were discussing / arguing over.
>
> In fact she was correct. I forgot I had another log-in id because of
> difficulties I had logging in some time previously. It might because of
> the passwords I originally used - either way, it was an honest mistake on
my
> part. I wasn't aware of it until Buffyblue mentioned it but it was not an
> issue at the time.
>
> What happened next is extraordinary.
>
> Today, I found i could not log in under either ID. I created a third ID
> because I suspected - but did not know - what had happened. Through the
> third ID, I figured out that the website administrator had cut me out of
> their website without giving me the courtesy of letting me know. How the
> heck was I supposed to know about this ?
>
> Ok, I also accept that their rules say they won't advise people, but that
> doesn't make it right - or reasonable. What sort of policy is that for a
> "consumer representative"?
>
> I emailed them asking what was going on. They then offered to reinstate
one
> of the IDs. Fine. I responded as requested, but I also let them know
that
> they're own policy lacked manners because of the absence of information
they
> provide. I also let them know that I had the third id which needed to be
> killed off as a display of my honesty in this episode. As you will see,
my
> hope that they would be able to take constructive criticisim proved to be
a
> fatal mistake.
>
> If they reinstated my original ID and cut my second and third IDs, then I
> would have been happily brought back within their rules. That is all I
> wanted to achieve.
>
> However, they not only killed off ID number 3, but refused to reinstate my
> earlier ID despite their earlier offer. I am sure if the tables were
> turned, they would be gleefully reporting that on their website - but now
> the heat is on them and they clearly don't like it.
>
> They have a little gem in place now which blocks the ISP address once they
> detect a cookie with my ID - or at least I think that is the case. I can
> find their site through anonymous browsers, but not from those that I
> currently use. In otherwords, I can't even go to their front page except
> through an anonymous browser - I know how to defeat this but I am now more
> interested in letting others know about NGE than arguing with some grumpy
> computer geek.
>
> I have emailed them twice to seek confirmation that they had locked me
out.
> To their credit, I have received a message saying that I could no longer
be
> a member because i lacked 'manners'. What ? That was the word I used in
> relation to them ? Need I remind them that I raised an issue about a
telco -
> and somehow this got me barred by someone who didn't even bother tell me
> what was going on?
>
> Again, for an organisation that claims to represent consumers, that "aint
> good enough".
>
> The issue I had with the telco is now resolved so I have no reason to go
to
> NGEs website again. However NGEs own actions are too tempting to overlook
> and my hope is that they will realise that all I have been wanting to do
is
> work within their rules - ones which may lack 'manners' but are their
rules
> nonetheless.
>
> So, let me sum up:
> 1. A vindictive little piece called Buffyblue demonstrated that she is
> happy to malign other NGE subscribers on OT threads against NGE's own
rules-
> apparently without fear or favour of their admin staff; and
> 2. The website admin has demonstrated that he or she won't honour their
own
> promises if you happen to hold a critical view on their rules - regardless
> of whether you have agreed to abide by them.
>
> Fiona Stewart, over to you. I'll call you later this week on your mobile
if
> I don't hear from you before hand. You have my number so I would
encourage
> you to call me.
>
>
querying whether they are happy with NGE's absence of a dispute resolution
process in the event they have a dispute with them, in the hope that they'll
be able to apply pressure.
"Neil J" <neiljenkins@.removethis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:43f1c41b$0$25266$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
> This is related to, but not the same as, a posting I have in
aus.computers.
>
> For the benefit of those who know about www.notgoodenough.com.au (NGE),
let
> me tell you my story. Ironically this is a story about how NGE is itself
> what it claims - Not Good Enough.
>
> Not Good Enough is a website that claims to advocate for consumers. It has
> had its fair share of publicity on ACA and is referred to by the ACCC and
> consumer organisations.
>
> A few days ago, I put a posting on its website concerning a complaint I
had
> against a telecommunications carrier. All went well until a horrible
little
> piece called Buffyblue got involved. She brought the thread off topic and
> got shirty with me for reasons which made almost no sense to me. I
> complained about call centre staff in India, and she didn't like what I
said
> about how I view their work culture. She then complained to the website
> admin because I had a second log in id which was unrelated to the issues
we
> were discussing / arguing over.
>
> In fact she was correct. I forgot I had another log-in id because of
> difficulties I had logging in some time previously. It might because of
> the passwords I originally used - either way, it was an honest mistake on
my
> part. I wasn't aware of it until Buffyblue mentioned it but it was not an
> issue at the time.
>
> What happened next is extraordinary.
>
> Today, I found i could not log in under either ID. I created a third ID
> because I suspected - but did not know - what had happened. Through the
> third ID, I figured out that the website administrator had cut me out of
> their website without giving me the courtesy of letting me know. How the
> heck was I supposed to know about this ?
>
> Ok, I also accept that their rules say they won't advise people, but that
> doesn't make it right - or reasonable. What sort of policy is that for a
> "consumer representative"?
>
> I emailed them asking what was going on. They then offered to reinstate
one
> of the IDs. Fine. I responded as requested, but I also let them know
that
> they're own policy lacked manners because of the absence of information
they
> provide. I also let them know that I had the third id which needed to be
> killed off as a display of my honesty in this episode. As you will see,
my
> hope that they would be able to take constructive criticisim proved to be
a
> fatal mistake.
>
> If they reinstated my original ID and cut my second and third IDs, then I
> would have been happily brought back within their rules. That is all I
> wanted to achieve.
>
> However, they not only killed off ID number 3, but refused to reinstate my
> earlier ID despite their earlier offer. I am sure if the tables were
> turned, they would be gleefully reporting that on their website - but now
> the heat is on them and they clearly don't like it.
>
> They have a little gem in place now which blocks the ISP address once they
> detect a cookie with my ID - or at least I think that is the case. I can
> find their site through anonymous browsers, but not from those that I
> currently use. In otherwords, I can't even go to their front page except
> through an anonymous browser - I know how to defeat this but I am now more
> interested in letting others know about NGE than arguing with some grumpy
> computer geek.
>
> I have emailed them twice to seek confirmation that they had locked me
out.
> To their credit, I have received a message saying that I could no longer
be
> a member because i lacked 'manners'. What ? That was the word I used in
> relation to them ? Need I remind them that I raised an issue about a
telco -
> and somehow this got me barred by someone who didn't even bother tell me
> what was going on?
>
> Again, for an organisation that claims to represent consumers, that "aint
> good enough".
>
> The issue I had with the telco is now resolved so I have no reason to go
to
> NGEs website again. However NGEs own actions are too tempting to overlook
> and my hope is that they will realise that all I have been wanting to do
is
> work within their rules - ones which may lack 'manners' but are their
rules
> nonetheless.
>
> So, let me sum up:
> 1. A vindictive little piece called Buffyblue demonstrated that she is
> happy to malign other NGE subscribers on OT threads against NGE's own
rules-
> apparently without fear or favour of their admin staff; and
> 2. The website admin has demonstrated that he or she won't honour their
own
> promises if you happen to hold a critical view on their rules - regardless
> of whether you have agreed to abide by them.
>
> Fiona Stewart, over to you. I'll call you later this week on your mobile
if
> I don't hear from you before hand. You have my number so I would
encourage
> you to call me.
>
>