iBurst Accounts Suspended Without Warning

Chronos said:
Do you usually call people idiot or does it just make you feel more important?

And read-up on it where? your posts? that would biased. The ITWEB articles you claim to be false? They claim its not.

We'll see what iBust does about this. Will be interesting.
Click to expand...
I call idiots idiots

the ITweb article? which one, there are 3 and the only one that says anything close to what you just said was the one where WBS made comment, hrrm lets see what they said, they said peopel were downloading at 100mbit, thats 12.5MB a second, that means you could chew up 43GB in an hour, but apparantly you believe that your little plastic modem can handle 100mbit. It was ourgith lies, but whatever believe it, thats fine, I think you just displayed your level of independent though for everyone to see
 
I wasnt calling _YOU_ a thief. I was making a comment that if people are doing that, and bypassing the bandwidth cap on purpose then they are stealing bandwidth from other users.

I dont recall typing out a list of users i'm accusing anywhere.

and the article on itweb that i saw said, in brackets, 1mbit to clarify the mistake/misconception or whatever.

Independant thought? sorry i didnt know this forum only allowed posts that revolve around your thoughts.....
 
yes you were, and now ic deleted where i called you an idiot that because its supposed to be deemed a insult, because obviously I don't know your intellectual quota, but you can call me a thief just fine (hypocritical??).

obviously you have trouble understanding what independant thought means, it means you read up from both sides and make up your own damn mind, not believe what I believe, I have nothign invested int his and quite frankly don't care if you believe WBS did anythign wrong or right, I was just making comments for other users to read when they read your post that calls anyone who used 6GB thieves.

Actually since we're arguing symantecs let me fill you in on what a thief is, since possesion is 9/10ths of the law if I take something against your will, its theft if you give me something even if later you change your mind but if you give it, its not theft and I now own it. Any bandwith they gave me, was mine. Thats why they are using this "users bypassed capping mechanisms" bullsh*t, so it sounds like we took it against thier will and not that hey gave it by mistake.

To anyone reading this deciding which side to take think on this, 150 users (approxamitly) are accused of bypassing thier cap on purpose, the gap in the capping software was prominant for about 5 days, so that means either 150 people all were so smart they could find a way to bypass a cap all on thier own or 150 people got together to share this information and all bypass the cap together. Where would 150 iBurst users all be able to communicate in such a way, the only place I can think of is right here at the forum, please go look for any threads/posts where 150 people were told how to bypass a cap. I doubt you'll find anything
 
one more thing, if it was theft... wheres the criminal charges or even the civil cases to recover lost income? if 150 people "stole" from telkom, sabc, sentech, mnet, coke, the munsipality or any organisation you can bet money that they will attempt to prosecute or gain lost revenue.
 
i was having a discussion, you dont want to discuss you want to go ballistic and throw toys.

conversation ended.
 
ballistic... throw toys? I'm not sure what you mean, you call me a thief i call you an idiot, other than that I stated facts in a civil matter, if you don't have any thoughts or comments to justify your position then perhaps an intelligent forum debate isn't for you.
 
Now then, let us examine Chronos' post, and then Slimothy's latest rebuttal:
Chronos said:
is this the trick that has caused some people to be disconnected by iBurst? (bypassing the bandwidth manager)?

Cause if it is, good riddens! I want as much of my 64kbps as i can get ;)

Some of us try to use a service as its supposed to be, if others cant respect that I feel nothing for them. Its theft, plain and simple. You paid for 3GB's, you've taken 6GB's at an uncapped rate - you're stealing from the rest who are paying.
Click to expand...
The way I interpret that: Chronos is expressing an opinion, and not explicity saying that 'Slimothy is a thief'. The post itself poses a question upon which the rest of the post conditionally hinges!
slimothy said:
yes you were, and now ic deleted where i called you an idiot that because its supposed to be deemed a insult, because obviously I don't know your intellectual quota, but you can call me a thief just fine (hypocritical??).
...
Click to expand...
So, Slimothy outright says that Chronos is an idiot, and I regard that as being an unwanted personal attack, yes I do, bcos 3 or 4 posts down the line there would be a full out flame war, which is not what this forum is about.
 
yeah yeah whatever, fact is I fall into that group that he calls "others" and he says those "others" steal, "its theft plain and simple"

if that doesn't mean I'm a thief then I just don't know... I hope you realise you don't have to refer to someones name or nick to be talking about them. If I say moderators are retards I didn't actually say "ic is a retard" but thats what I meant. (btw that was just an example, I don't think you're a tard)

all this BS aside, I didn't steal anything, I took what I was given, I was not in the wrong and still am not. If i was wheres the criminal/civil action?
 
oh one last thing, no where did I say "chronos is an idiot" so using your logic, I don't outright call him an idiot.
 
illegally yes, but that does not constitute civil or legal action, my question was "If i was wheres the criminal/civil action?"
 
you're doing what debaters call a logic loop, trying to use anythign I said before against me, its an interesting tactic except for one thing, PEOPLE ARE TAKING CIVIL ACTION AGAINST WBS, myself included, check out the reccomended disclaimer thread, that disclaimer is the first point of civil action, also before peopel were told to put UNDER DISPUTE on thier bandwith "requests", the only reason you do that is so you have a leg to stand on later when you want to claim back compensation.

As for criminal charges, you have got to be kidding, you see a corperation is an individual in the eyes of the law except for one thing, a corperation can't go to jail (individuals who knowingly break the law within an organisation can but not the corperation). You see if WBS pressed criminal charges against an individual an individual gets jail time or a fine or probation community service, suspended sentence etc etc but if you did the same to WBS you sign yourself up to fight a multi million rand corperation which if the charges get dropped because of soem technicality later the judge can drop them with cost to you, which means you get to pay thier lawyer fees for them or if you do get prosecution, they pay a tiny little fine, admit wrong and move on. So it would be stupid to even consider, so civil action is the only way to go so you can get whatever they owe you and carry on with your life
 
woh woh, this thread was taken from another thread and is now completley out of context, the title for one implies people who got suspended did use tricks to get full speed when they should have been throttled... I don't agree with that at all. I was suspended, people who have been on the other side of the fence weren't so I believe I can speak from an educated post here when I say NOBODY THAT WAS SUSPENDED USED A TRICK AT ANY POINT TO BYPASS BANDWITH MANAGERS

The recent trick I sort of published is an entirley new thign and wouldn't have worked previous to last thursday

if you are reading this thread which is now out of context and think it validates WBS' stand point that "abusers" used sneaky tricks and "stole" your bandwith, think again.
 
slimothy said:
you're doing what debaters call a logic loop, trying to use anythign I said before against me, its an interesting tactic except for one thing, PEOPLE ARE TAKING CIVIL ACTION AGAINST WBS, myself included, check out the reccomended disclaimer thread, that disclaimer is the first point of civil action, also before peopel were told to put UNDER DISPUTE on thier bandwith "requests", the only reason you do that is so you have a leg to stand on later when you want to claim back compensation.
Click to expand...

i see. thats not civil action, you do know that dont you?
 
claiming back compensation through a court is not civil action? no i did not know that, I guess our entire language and legal system was changed while I was sleeping.

I did mention that it was the first step of civil action, the first step being... getting evidence so you have a leg to stand on but obviously you're the type who argues semantics so it appears I will have to find a post where someone actually mentions taking WBS to court to answer your original question
halicon said:
but if it were illegal wouldnt there be criminal/civil action?
Click to expand...
http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=19794 also regarding your original question, it doesn't need to be illegal to jistify civil action
 
yes... on that same thread i exposed what a lawyer friend had to say. fact is you won't get very far with your 'civil action' by using the 'UNDER DISPUTE' demand because it's not that you owe WBS anything and they are not requesting money owing.

you want a service that they have 'ilegally' cut off. however by paying you have lost the case because in the eyes of legalities you have deemed yourself guilty by paying.
you should have contested this first, and then if their was no luck, then perhaps bought more bw with the 'UNDER DISPUTE' signature. or wbs can simply ignore those fax's and send them to their legal department.

as for the disclaimer, you cant really do that unless you are going to follow the procedures set forth in the wbs contract point 11.4, which is kinda irrelevant because you agreed to the contract and they did do what they did according to their contract.

might not have been nice what they did but i dount anything legally solid is ever going to come out of this... just a couple of angry users on another sa isp. nothing unusual.
 
Last edited:
lawyer friend, schmayer schmiend (sorry I had to)
your question was wether anyone was taking civil action, and people are

wether your your "lawyer friend" think it will work is of no relavence, it will need to be tested infront of a judge, he/she's the only person who can decide if it will work or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X