On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:11:35 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian wrote:

They really don't help their case - which may or may not be valid, I
don't know - with some emotive over-exaggerated ******** as that. If
the interference is "illegal", why are they having to try to ban it?

This was discussed some many months ago, in a different newsgroup, and
they still use the same cringe-making language. They need to get
somebody with real PR experience to go over their website. The fact
that it has stayed so bad for so long is not to their advantage.

As I said, read it and make up your own mind.

--
Davey.