Thank you for taking the time to read this post.
I write to you on behalf of my friend 24 (Martin Kearns) who advises that of late, he is unable to properly access any of your four websites under the RHP banner.
The symptoms are that he can go to ANY internet connected PC, and log-in ok - but once having logged in, when clicking on any link (forums, profiles etc) this returns only a blank page. Any further attempt, ie refreshing the page or opening a new window then yields only a blank page too.
Trying a different PC he can then again "log-in" but immediately again encounters the same problem, and he is beginning to suspect that he might have become persona non grata?
I am sure he is paranoid, but he reckons that his user-id / log-in email is recognised by one of the "other tools" that you utilise (no, I do not mean Metzler - he is not a "tool" just a pr*ck).
Anyway, Martin wants to advise you that for himself he does not give a damn. He says your site stinks! And has no intention of utilising it further.
However, his friend Florence (for whom he bought a star) regrettably cannot now access her OWN chess games....this from a pc where Martin himself had tried to log in, and that pc now will not allow ANY access - the RHP, CAW etc home pages simply display as blank.
Martin has asked me to advise you that IF your hand is behind this, then an immediate, if only partial refund is required in respect of Florence' star. And while you are about it, he has now decided that the cancellation of his OWN subscription some weeks ago now merits a similar refund.
Martin can be contacted at martin.brighton@gmail.com (as if you did not know already).
Will you refund accordingly? Many thanks in anticipation of your doing this (says Martin).
And woe betide you if you don't.........
;-)
i would encourage russ to refund if it was appropriate ...
i would also encourage russ not to refund if it was appropriate.
possibly the argument here may go something like:
PERSON A pays for PERSON A, PERSON B and PERSON C.
PERSON B is found guilty of "cheating".
should PERSON A, B and C all lose their rights?
i believe it clear that PERSON B should lose ... this includes PERSON A's funding gone to subsidise the "police system" - but only so far as it is connected to PERSON B.
but PERSON A and PERSON C seem to be cases that should be kept separate and judged of their own merits.
sufficient proof that PERSON B was a cheat - is not sufficient proof that PERSON A nor PERSON C knew of PESON B's intention to sin.