"Froot Bat" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:52:06 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:31:08 +0000, Froot Bat wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:57:04 -0000, "Brian Gregory [UK]"

I suppose it makes no difference if you're just going to sit there and
do
nothing about it.

And what exactly do you seriously think you can do about it? For all
your mad ping/traceroute/DNS skillz, unless you're actually a tech or
admin where the problem is, the answer is: absolutely sod all.

2) If it is not within your control you can make a better case to
whoever's responsibility it is to get it fixed.

Because only you will be aware of the problem, right?

Many organizations will reject complaints unless they receive a lot that are
the same.

For instance It took over four weeks of persistant complaints from a dozen
or so people to get Google to admit that the google mobilizer script was
corrupt on their UK based cache server yet that was a total outage of all
mobilized search results in the UK. Somone has to complain or nothing
happens.


Like I said: it makes no difference.

Like I and he said, it helps to know where the problem lies.

Say it all you like, knowing that other people can access a site
doesn't tell you where the problem lies and doesn't help you access
the site, it just tells you the site isn't down.

It tells you if it's worth going round to someone elses house to use a
different ISP, or into town to try using a WiFi hotspot.


You still can't access the site, regardless of what you _think_ you
know about the problem. You still have to find something else to do
while you wait till it's fixed, whether you manage to track down
someone to report it to or not.

Your argument rests on the ridiculous premise that you and you alone
are aware that there's a problem and where it is, and without you
saving the day the problem will continue.

That's your philosophy is it.
Some other mug can do all the work.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.