BN66 - Time to fight back!!!

[NickFitz]

Quick Links > User Control Panel > Buddy/Ignore lists

Go on, then I can tell everyone who you really work for and you'll never know...

Ooh, that sounds like fun... how exactly does being ignored by a user give you access to information that could allow you to obtain such knowledge?

I'm tempted to buy vBulletin® to hunt around for this security hole, so I can report back to the owners of the code and get it closed ASAP - but if you are aware of such an issue, you really ought to report it yourself, as a responsible Internet citizen.

Of course you could be a wind-up merchant, or a scaremonger, in that there is no such security issue, and you're just trying to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt. That's not actually a very clever thing to do.

If there is such an issue, please PM me about it and I'll buy the source code, determine the origin of the problem, then get on to the vBulletin developers and have it fixed (or have my fix accepted).

Just to be clear, none of the matters discussed in this thread affect me personally, but security issues of the kind you suggest affect us all, and I am happy to expend both personal effort and personal money to get them fixed.

This benefits not only this, but all other, online communities that use the vBulletin software.

UPDATE: no, not a security problem it turns out

[NotAllThere]

The simplest explanation is that he means he already knows who Donkey works for. And if he gets on Donkey's ignore list, he can say anything he likes about Donkey, without Donkey being aware.

That's how I read it, anyway.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Quick Links > User Control Panel > Buddy/Ignore lists

Go on, then I can tell everyone who you really work for and you'll never know...

So long, and thanks for all the FUD.

[poppy01]

I was just kindly forwarded the MP circular, and it gives me some confidence that MP are stirring into action. I hope Mr B and his discredited department are prepared for the bare knuckle fight to come, in which their sheer incompetence and outright dishonesty will be exposed before the courts. I really cannot see how the judicial review can allow them to get away with it when the facts become known.

[BrilloPad]

I was just kindly forwarded the MP circular, and it gives me some confidence that MP are stirring into action. I hope Mr B and his discredited department are prepared for the bare knuckle fight to come, in which their sheer incompetence and outright dishonesty will be exposed before the courts. I really cannot see how the judicial review can allow them to get away with it when the facts become known.

WHS

But Mr B (hello ) will appeal all the way. I wonder when it has to be approved by his boss?

[SantaClaus]

I had coffee yesterday with another of the lurkers on this thread. Also at clientco. He promises he will say hello as soon as he is in real-time - a few hours ago he was at post 1030!

He was at Sumitomo - I look forward to sharing the details...

Just tell him to skip all of Malvio's posts. He'll finish the thread in double quick time.

[smalldog]

OK, I'm gone. Just to summarise my contribution for hte hard of thinking and stripping out the Malvolioisms, the banter and the name calling:

1. You collectively do not appear to understand the mechanics of the process you are relying on nor those of your opponents

2. You are putting undue faith in a supplier that may not have the same motivations as you do

3. You do not fully understand the legal processes that are being used, their duration and their applicabiliilty to your individual positions

4. You were possibly foolish to get into this position in the first place, and you probably don't have the moral support of the majority.

Have fun. Hope you win.

what a Tw*t!!!! on point 1, really what dont we understand? 2 we are putting faith in them on the basis they want to win to protect their established business, doesnt matter that they are fighting for our or their means, they are fighting thats the key pooint. I couldnt give a toss if it was cos Mr B has shagged the directors wife, as long as they fight.. 3 why do we care? 4 in your opinion.

5 F**k off!!

[NotAllThere]

As a sympathetic, but disinterested party, I fear that 1-3 are true. Point 4 is partly true; I don't think you were particularly foolish, and I think you should have moral support over the retrospective issue.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

As a sympathetic, but disinterested party, I fear that 1-3 are true. Point 4 is partly true; I don't think you were particularly foolish, and I think you should have moral support over the retrospective issue.

Even if all this is true, what is the alternative now but to see it through?

We could try Warr & Co or some other advisors to represent us but that would involve shelling out more money. Personally, I'm not interested in throwing good money after "bad". Besides, no-one else has the resources or vested interest (protecting their reputation, £2M loan repayments) to fight this like MontP, and HMRC aren't going to be in any mood to negotiate.

I have taken out a CTD, so even if this does drag on for another 5 years or more, my potential liability will remain the same as it is today, so the way I see it I've got nothing to lose by leaving MontP to do their stuff.

[NotAllThere]

Even if all this is true, what is the alternative now but to see it through?

None.

I have taken out a CTD, so even if this does drag on for another 5 years or more, my potential liability will remain the same as it is today, so the way I see it I've got nothing to lose by leaving MontP to do their stuff.

It's people who can't afford a CTD who are a bit stuffed then, if it all goes pear shaped.