Guest Big Ron - No Longer a Mem Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 Deleting the thread may have seemed like a good idea.... but surely it would have been more sensible to simply delete the original post, add the explanatory comment that it WAS a hoax and then LOCK it? Particularly in light that the thread sprawled onto other sections of this forum, quoted the original post verbatim... and remains active and undeleted! [http://smartphone.modaco.com/viewtopic.php?t=66295] Turning the perpetrator into an "unperson" and making the thread vanish reeks of "1984", and serves nobody's interests. By now, the hoax has spread beyond Modaco - but Modaco remains the SOURCE of this jape. By removing all record of it, it makes it harder for others to verify that they've been had than a disclaimer would have. Given that the original post managed to look so kosher - it included long chunks of familiar-looking standard Orange "Boilerplate" text, and given that the perpetrator seems to have KNOWN that Julian Hope wouldn't be around for a while to expose the scam, it looks to me like "an inside job". Removing the evidence makes it harder for the perpetrator to get caught or brought to book. I for one was taken in - hoaxes usually share two features: exhortations to generate as many emails as possible as quickly as possible (which this one had - in triplicate, all from the same person) USUALLY coupled to bad spelling and worse grammar, and a quote in support from a totally fictional figure. If anything, this one was better spelled and more grammatical than Orange's usual output. :evil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest xmob Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 The perpetrator was Guy Kewney. He posted a message on his site at http://www.newswireless.net/articles/030613-spv.html with the 'supposed' questionairre. See the follow up discussion at: http://www.quicktopic.com/22/H/SgcUUXTUtpRe The Register fell for it too, though the post was made by Guy Kewnet (again): http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/68/31209.html I'm surpised at Guy, he's quite well respected in the IT World (editor of PCW) and he wouldn't normally make mistakes like this. I also agree that pulling the plug on the posts was a bad idea too. It would have made more sense to edit to relevant posts (removing email addys etc) and add a follow on post stating THAT IT IS A HOAX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Ron - No Longer a Mem Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 The perpetrator was Guy Kewney. He posted a message on his site at http://www.newswireless.net/articles/030613-spv.html with the 'supposed' questionairre. See the follow up discussion at: http://www.quicktopic.com/22/H/SgcUUXTUtpRe The Register fell for it too, though the post was made by Guy Kewnet (again): http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/68/31209.html I'm surpised at Guy, he's quite well respected in the IT World (editor of PCW) and he wouldn't normally make mistakes like this. I also agree that pulling the plug on the posts was a bad idea too. It would have made more sense to edit to relevant posts (removing email addys etc) and add a follow on post stating THAT IT IS A HOAX. I can assure you of Kewney's innocence - since it was ME who drew his attention to the posting in THIS forum. So, the sequence of events is fairly clear: the original post HERE (13th June) and Kewney's response (AFTER I'd told him about it) somewhat later. Kewney's forum suggested that it was a hoax, and I brought the idea back here. THEN the thread disappeared from here, whether as a result of my post or not I don't know - but the two events were spaced no more than a few minutes apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest xmob Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 That's more like it then. I should never have doubted Guy Kewney. :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awarner [MVP] Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 As I have only just found out obout this all I can tell you is that post has been moved to a restricted area until Paul returns from holiday. When I have some more relevent information I will post it. So I suppose the question is who has julian Hope upset then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Ron - No Longer a Mem Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 Note also that we have someone called "Chris D" who posted the following at 18:39 on the 13th: http://smartphone.modaco.com/viewtopic.php?t=66295 "Here's the questionnaire cut out from that email which I also got recently! Just copy, paste and email it to the address at the bottom " A claim to ALSO have recieved the same email, and therefore lend veracity to the same hoax posting? Looks to me like the same person. I posted in the deleted thread, hoping to check if it was true or a hoax by asking if anyone else HAD received the same mail (if it was fake, then NOBODY would have recieved it!)... and that's when they pulled the plug on the thread. Anyone who had followed it to that point would NOT have been advised that they were wasting their time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Ron - No Longer a Mem Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 As I have only just found out obout this all I can tell you is that post has been moved to a restricted area until Paul returns from holiday. When I have some more relevent information I will post it. So I suppose the question is who has julian Hope upset then? The other questions being... (1) how did you miss that fact that the thread is duplicated, complete with the original hoax posting in its entirety, and (2) do you have plans to move THAT thread into the same limbo, or just let it run? (I've added a post to it explaining that it IS a hoax) Are there means to find out who "SPVlover" was? (My main interest being to find out if my hypothesis that he ALSO posts as "Chris D" is correct!) One suspects that the easiest way to find out what the poster had against Julian Hope is to reveal his real name... and ask Julian! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 My apologies. I removed the original post and did not have time to finish tiding up before a blood donation appointment. I can assure you i am now back and will do my best to remove as many references as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awarner [MVP] Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 As I posted that is all I know at the moment, I did not move the post and I also did not miss the other post. I've only just dinished work so give me time :lol: As you have posted that it is a hoax in the smartphone newsgroup I do not see the reason to move it, but if someone else feels that it should be moved, it's up to them. Also remember that modaco does not own the newsgroups, we only sync with them. Like I said I would like more info on why these posts were created, and what was the point of it :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cybercamel Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 Well I've only just realised that this was a hoax by reading this thread. :oops: I was going to send an apology to Julian Hope, but I wonder if just one should be sent on behalf of everyone who has been conned from this site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 I would advise ~against~ sending him any more email for the mean time ;p Also we have no way to track "Chris D". He posted from the newsgroup and as such we have no way to track him. I have now locked the topic. I would remove it however it would be reinstated on the next newsgroup sync. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Ron - No Longer a Mem Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 Can we conclude that the complete removal of the thread (rather than just deleting the original post and adding an explanation) was a policy error? Looks like people are only NOW discovering the hoax because I've raised the issue again. No point crying over spilled milk, but next time (if there is a next time...) it would be wise to have learned from the experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bertie_uk Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 You may laugh/shout at me later but: I have been watching this forum for a while, since becoming interested in getting a Tanager, and this is my first post. I could sit back and watch you all squable over this hoax business. I saw the original post first thing on Saturday and instead of sending an email (as I knew the bloke was out), I called 150 OCS and spoke to handset upgrades about said "trial". After 5 mins on hold whilst the operator talked to the trials dept, she said "apparently, the only way to get on the new SPV trial is through the trials website at www.trials.orange.co.uk" and so admitting there was such a trial and I needed to register with the trials dept to be considered for it ( i didnt know there were questions about the authentisity of the trial so didnt ask if it was real, but she didnt come back with "there is no such trial"). The site doesnt list any current trials, but we were talking a few hours after the original email. Bertie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awarner [MVP] Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 It still states There are currently no future trials available Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 Can we conclude that the complete removal of the thread (rather than just deleting the original post and adding an explanation) was a policy error? I acted as i was instructed to do so. bertie: The trials website will show trials that match the critera when compared to your answers when you signed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Ron - No Longer a Mem Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 "Can we conclude that the complete removal of the thread (rather than just deleting the original post and adding an explanation) was a policy error?" "I acted as i was instructed to do so. " OK, then can we conclude that the instruction you got was a policy error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Monolithix [MVP] Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 You can conclude what you like, to be perfectly honest. I am not at liberty to say any more than i already have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest squall Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 oh dear. who is Julian Hope? i sent him an email, not the questionaire, just my experencies with the spv, in the hope the problems could be addressed in a future edition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest squall Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 sorry for multi posts, server trouble at my end i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awarner [MVP] Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 Ahhhhh mono you tidied up the same time as me :roll: :oops: sorry Ian could you repost :oops: after your multiposts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest squall Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 Recieved this from neil ashley at O. "Hello. I've received a number of emails over the past few days, presumably because Julian Hope's vacation message suggests contacting me in his absence. Unfortunately, this relates to something in which neither Julian nor myself have involvement. The following statement should clarify the situation; A number of Orange customers have received an email which claims to be from Orange inviting them to participate in a trial of the new Orange SPV handset. While this information appears to have been sent by the Orange trials team, it was not generated by Orange. The next version of the SPV, the SPV E100 will be launched in the UK in July. All trials of this handset are now complete. Orange very much regrets any disappointment caused to our customers by this misleading email and we are conducting a full investigation into its origin. Regards, Neil" PS. sorry for multi posting to start with, my computer seems to be having an ' off day' :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gears1 Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 Hello folks ! Bloody hell, this hot weather is playing merry HELL with the temperature of my beer!! Why am I here ? Errr.. Oh yeah, just spotted this - appears that www.newswireless.net (well, the forum that it runs) is trying to blame modaco ! Pfff :shock: http://www.quicktopic.com/22/H/SgcUUXTUtpRe I love cheesy poofsss.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awarner [MVP] Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 The posts say it originated here and it does appear they are correct. the interesting point made is that is it someone trying to discredit Orange or Modaco? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gears1 Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 Blame aside, what the HELL were they REALLY trying to achieve though ? Get people to spam someone at Orange that someone has taken a dislike to ? To annoy everyone here and on the other websites ? I don't get it. :? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awarner [MVP] Posted June 16, 2003 Report Share Posted June 16, 2003 I wish I knew :lol: perhaps it's a combination of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts