ITVx Issues

[Roy Bloom]

You're talking boll@x.

I do like it when you quote technical IT terms.

You've no knowledge of the contractual relationship of the parties.

I like it even more whern you make assumptions about my knowledge of issues.

You would need to look at the warranty clause in their contracts. You will find both Oracle and SAP do not offer such warranties.

Did anyone say they did?
Talk about strawman arguments.

e.g. . pretty clear - buy my software and make sure its fit for the purpose you wish to use it for.

SAP is a software house. Systems Application Programming, or something like that. They design and rollout software solutions. They choose the best 'programme' on which to develop the system.
For sure they will install some systems off-the-shelf for scenarios where a previously ready-made package will suit. I doubt they will tell you that. But they don't sell systems for self installation, development and roll-out. Programmes like Oracle will do so.
But they weren't the main contractor, Fujitsu was, so that discussion is irrelevant.

They are not alone. This is entirely standard, across the whole industry and is why System Integrators (such as Fujitsu Services) exist. Bring together different components and write software code on the platforms you have chosen to build a system for the customer according to their requirements.

Why are you trying to teach granny to suck eggs?

Then we have standard warranties in IT services.. Typically they will have a limitation of Liability clause, capping exposure for damages, then they will have a reasonable skill and care clause to limit professional negligence and lastly they will limit their obligation to re-performing the defective service. That basically means if I got it wrong and you can show I didn't use reasonable skill and care, then my entire liability is to redo the specific defective service.

Still trying to teach granny.

Now public sector contracts are rather different, but in the case of Horizon, there will have been external consultants involved in the requirements gathering and functional design. There will have been design specification and testing specification signed off by the client and there will have been acceptance test completed and signed off before go-live. This is how IT project are done.

Still trying to teach granny.
I think you're boring everyone now.

It would be inherently bad design for an integration between two systems to rely on a network. Good design would handle transaction failure due to any cause. i.e. if I cannot guarantee the whole transaction on all the required systems, I must abort all of it.

And Horizon was evidently badly designed to not deal with network outages.
The proof was in the pudding, and they replaced it.
Finally we got there.

 

[Mottie]

he contravened a rule on this forum,

Another rule is no excessive quoting but I suspect you think that doesn’t apply to you, Jim.

 

[Roy Bloom]

You do realise that you previous attempt to open this up again has been deleted by the moderators?



and you do realise that the above post confirms that you did what I said you did and you claim you didn't do.

I ddi qualifiy it by saying if your account was true, you intentionally, recklessly and knowingly posted private inofrmation that you knew could allow the identifying of another poster, just like ReganandCarter's disclosure of supposed personal information.

So your account was either true, and you contravned a basic tenet of this site and social media, and you intended to cause harm and distress, and potentially criminally, or your account was false and you're a liar.
Take your pick.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Don’t be such a professionally offended tart, Jim.

Still stalking and trying to cause harm and distress?
It's become your trademark.

 

[Mottie]

Still stalking and trying to cause harm and distress?

Really? Again, on a scale of one to ten, how harmed and distressed do you feel? If you can’t give a figure, we can only assume you are lying.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Another rule is no excessive quoting but I suspect you think that doesn’t apply to you, Jim.

Is it causing you harm and distress, snoopy?
Another rule is not be abusive, but you don't bother with that one either.
In fact you try to be abusive every chance you can get.

Every little sliver of personal information you can get, you use it time and time again to cause harm and distress.

 

[Mottie]

Is it causing you harm and distress, snoopy?

None at all. Like I said, my name is Steve but you or anyone else can call me whatever name you like.

In fact you try to be abusive every chance you can get.

Were you not being abusive, calling people idiots?

 

[Roy Bloom]

Really? Again, on a scale of one to ten, how harmed and distressed do you feel? Simple question to answer.

It was the intention to cause harm and distress that matters.
I've written it a large format because you don't seem to have read it the first, nor the second, nor the third time.

 

[Mottie]

Again, on a scale of one to ten, how harmed and distressed do you feel?

 

[Roy Bloom]

None at all.

Then why raise it? Oh, yes because you now have a vendetta. And any little thing you will use as a weapon.

Were you not being abusive, calling people idiots?

Is that the worst you could find?

 

[Mottie]

Then why raise it? Oh, yes because you now have a vendetta. And any little thing you will use as a weapon.


Is that the worst you could find?

It’s worse than calling them Jim, wouldn’t you say? Were you were giving them a compliment when you called them idiots?

 

[Roy Bloom]

Again, on a scale of one to ten, how harmed and distressed do you feel?

It was the intention to cause harm and distress that matters.
I've written it a large format because you don't seem to have read it the first, nor the second, nor the third time.

Motorbiking and you and sillyboy wanted to, and intentionally, wantonly and knowingly tried to cause distress and harm.
It isn't about how successful you were, it's about your intention to be abusive.

1a) Abusive or unhelpful posts are not welcome on this site and are always removed! Don't be a TROLL!
1b) Posts which seek to avoid the forum word-censor may be removed without warning.
1c) Posts which seek to bully or otherwise target individual members (ad hominem comments) may be removed without warning.

7) Please avoid excessive use of bold text, capitals or larger fonts as it is considered to be SHOUTING!

When you intentionally ignore the point being made, or pretend you haven't read it, it's necessary to ensure you can read it.

12) Please do not post to repeat material already deemed inappropriate.

13) NEVER post any other member's personal details or information which may be used for identification.

You appear to be testing the rules to see how many you can break in one go.
But you, motorbiking and sillyboy are allowed to consistently break the rules.

 

[Roy Bloom]

It’s worse than calling them Jim, wouldn’t you say? Were you were giving them a compliment when you called them idiots?

If people behave like idiots they can expect to be described as idiots.
Perhaps you'd like to put my comments into context?
Then I can explain each and every example.
It should suit your vendetta attitude.

If you want to post their names, claiming it's their genuine names, I'd say that's a pretty horrible, and potentilly criminal way to behave.
It's an intention to cause harm and distress. Your success is of no importance. It's your intention that matters.

 

[Mottie]

"NEVER post any other member's personal details or information which may be used for identification".

Do you seriously consider that mentioning your first name makes you identifiable? Jim? Jim from (possibly) the UK? Grow up you big tart.

 

[Roy Bloom]

"NEVER post any other member's personal details or information which may be used for identification".

Do you seriously consider that mentioning your first name makes you identifiable? Jim? Jim from (possibly) the UK? Grow up you big tart.

When the first name and the address is published Of course it potentially identifies an individual. It could be anyone.
ReganandCarter published someone's address. Like motorbiking he claimed that that someone disclosed it themselves.
Now motorbiking has published someone's first name.
I'd say that's an illegal disclosure of personal data of the highest magnitude. It doesn't matter whether it's accurate data or not, it's the intention to cause harm and distress by claiming it is accurate.

If the personal data is disclosed by accident, and deleted it suggests that the data should never have been in the public domain. If someone then repeats that disclosure, not once but time and time again, it's absolutely intentionally to cause harm and distress.
And it's doing it knowingly that harm and distress might be caused.

If the story is false, and the data released is not accurate, it makes the member that disclosed the data, a liar.

It's a classic example of you, ReganandCarter, sillyboy, and motorbiking weaponising any information that you think is personal.
It indicates that some members are out to cause harm and distress to other members, whenever they have the opportunity.
If that's the example of the type of member that you want to associate with this site, that's your choice.

I suspect it's not the type of member the admin want associated with this site.
But at the moment they appear to be content to allow it to continue.

Now about that thread diversion you were so concerned about.