Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook
Register
Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,847

    The Iron Curtain has fallen- DHC has been sold!

    According to recent reports, Digitalhome.ca and its accompanying forum have been sold to a company called 'VerticalScope'. Looks like the guy in charge has decided to move on to something else- hopefully this spells the end of the moronic rules era?!

    No clue who this company is but according to their website they own and operate over 300 sites and specialize in what they call 'online communities' or simply put message boards. They operate a whole slew of message boards on a variety of topics and having looked through a few they appear to be very bland and generic- I wonder if this is what Digital Home Forums will turn into?!

    I think I will stay on the fence for now and see how things play out before deciding whether to sign up again as a member. If the same moderating crew remains in charge then I don't think I will be interested in joining, perhaps its best just to stay right here as a member of this great forum! :)

    Here is a link to the VerticalScope site: http://www.verticalscope.com/
    Last edited by CDN Viewer; 01-24-2012 at 09:55 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Iron Curtain, that's going way back, some people might have to Google it. ;)


    But care to chime me in why "Hugh" is such a bad guy? I've seen a few of his posts, he doesn't sound as bad as you describe him.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Iron Curtain, that's going way back, some people might have to Google it. ;)


    But care to chime me in why "Hugh" is such a bad guy? I've seen a few of his posts, he doesn't sound as bad as you describe him.
    Well for starters, he practically banned anyone who said anything positive about Value for Signal, unless they "admitted they worked for a broadcaster". I'm pretty sure the only reason he was so against VFS was because CTV turned down his offer to buy advertising on his website (which he complained about). But that's just one example, he basically deletes any posts that disagree with his views and bans most people who disagree with him. He will also state his opinions as facts in his "news" stories (ex. he "blamed" the CRTC for a BDU adding more local stations when the reality is the CRTC had nothing to do with it, the BDU added them on its own) Dictator is certainly a good word to describe him, the world should be happy he didn't enter politics.

    Unfortunately, I wouldn't expect many changes with the sale, he posted this on his website:

    Of course, on a personal level, I will remain a frequent contributor to the forum.
    The sale really shouldn't change much on the Digital Forum. Vertical Scope will give the Digital Forum a professional design, the day to day operations of the Digital Forum should continue in a similar fashion.
    I'm actually upset that he was able to make money selling his website (which has barely any (if any) unique content)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,847
    But care to chime me in why "Hugh" is such a bad guy? I've seen a few of his posts, he doesn't sound as bad as you describe him.
    Well simply put I don't like the way he ran the site, specifically this system he had in place with all these stupid rules and infractions.

    His site is the exact opposite of this one where there is very little moderation and people are free to post whatever they want (I don't agree with this approach either, there should be some moderation but not too much). His site is very heavily moderated and all posts and comments appear to be scrutinized and as TVViewer mentioned if there is something that doesn't jive with him or his views then he gives you an 'infraction' or if according to his system its serious enough you get banned. I just think this is very childish, I would think that most users are adults and as adults should be able to conduct themselves in a civilized manner, there is no need for the infraction police.

    I got banned a few months back for posting negative comments about a certain channel and its programming. I was merely expressing my opinion of the channel and wanted to see if others felt the same (the programming has been the same for years) but he interpreted my post in a totally different manner and I ended up getting banned. Ridiculous if you ask me but I guess in the end it was his site and he was free to do as he pleased. I have decided not to sign up again even though the site is under new ownership- this forum is good enough for me, I don't need another. :)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Well for starters, he practically banned anyone who said anything positive about Value for Signal, unless they "admitted they worked for a broadcaster". I'm pretty sure the only reason he was so against VFS was because CTV turned down his offer to buy advertising on his website (which he complained about). But that's just one example, he basically deletes any posts that disagree with his views and bans most people who disagree with him. He will also state his opinions as facts in his "news" stories (ex. he "blamed" the CRTC for a BDU adding more local stations when the reality is the CRTC had nothing to do with it, the BDU added them on its own)
    Did you get into a argument with him?

    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    Dictator is certainly a good word to describe him, the world should be happy he didn't enter politics.
    Have you seen politics lately? He pales in comparison. ;)


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I'm actually upset that he was able to make money selling his website (which has barely any (if any) unique content)
    He sold a brand, content is relative. Welcome to 21st century innovation.


    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    Well simply put I don't like the way he ran the site, specifically this system he had in place with all these stupid rules and infractions.
    If its rules like double posting, or quoting (like what I'm doing now) are rules that have been around since the BBS era. Most modern forums don't enforcer these rules anymore, but some traditional forum admins still do.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    His site is the exact opposite of this one where there is very little moderation and people are free to post whatever they want (I don't agree with this approach either, there should be some moderation but not too much). His site is very heavily moderated and all posts and comments appear to be scrutinized and as TVViewer mentioned if there is something that doesn't jive with him or his views then he gives you an 'infraction' or if according to his system its serious enough you get banned. I just think this is very childish, I would think that most users are adults and as adults should be able to conduct themselves in a civilized manner, there is no need for the infraction police.
    Hugh is more eccentric than childish, common trait among programmers, especially ones who just make WordPress sites and call themselves programmers. (That's right I said IT!)


    Quote Originally Posted by CDN Viewer View Post
    I got banned a few months back for posting negative comments about a certain channel and its programming. I was merely expressing my opinion of the channel and wanted to see if others felt the same (the programming has been the same for years) but he interpreted my post in a totally different manner and I ended up getting banned. Ridiculous if you ask me but I guess in the end it was his site and he was free to do as he pleased. I have decided not to sign up again even though the site is under new ownership- this forum is good enough for me, I don't need another. :)
    What was the topic about, if I may ask?
    Last edited by Mayhem; 01-24-2012 at 11:27 PM.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Did you get into a argument with him?
    No, this happened to other people. Members who were saying anything positive about VFS were told by him to admit they are working for a broadcaster or they will be banned (yet people not supporting VFS didn't have to admit they were working for a cable company or admit they were cheap) I already did have an account on there (which I never used) so when I went to reply to the thread I got a message saying something along the lines of all new posts in this topic had to be approved by a mod to stop broadcaster employees. FYI this was a weekend so people who were banned were posting from home. Basically anyone who didn't support his position and share his views on that topic was banned. Even if you didn't support the VFS regime you can't deny that it's a horrible way to run a discussion forum.
    Last edited by TVViewer; 01-25-2012 at 09:03 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greater Toronto Area
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    I already did have an account on there (which I never used) so when I went to reply to the thread I got a message saying something along the lines of all new posts in this topic had to be approved by a mod to stop broadcaster employees.
    And you didn't reach out to these people via Private Messages? You had very little support for VFS here, I would have through you'll recruit. Just saying.


    Quote Originally Posted by TVViewer View Post
    FYI this was a weekend so people who were banned were posting from home. Basically anyone who didn't support his position and share his views on that topic was banned. Even if you didn't support the VFS regime you can't deny that it's a horrible way to run a discussion forum.
    And yet, he made money from it. I would say at least $60,000 at best he got from the sale.
    "And Now for Something Completely Different..." - John Cleese (Monty Python).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,728
    Ha! I received 4 demerit points for saying the word "shit", and got banned indefinately for discontinuing a thread I started.

    I wrote a thread here after I got banned: http://www.viewers.ca/discuss/showthread.php?t=7852

    I prefer my catfights with TVViewer here.
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    7
    Sorry for awakening up this thread from the dead but I have a few comments to support the feedback made by other members in regards to DHC.

    We have been sponsoring the Free To Air forum on Digital Home Canada for a few years now and are currently spending close to $5,000 per year. However, we are thinking very seriously of dropping our sponsorship with them due to severe issues with some of their moderators and including Hugh Thompson himself who is no longer supposed to control the forum as he does not own it anymore.

    As part of our forum sponsorship agreement, we have been provided full moderator access for our sponsored Free To Air forum on Digital Home Canada. However, our DrSat user account has now been banned for almost 1 full month so far by moderator Jase88 simply for trying to close a cross-posted thread as cross posts are against the Digital Home forum so called "rules"! Normally this would not be an issue but as that thread was opened by Hugh himself, it is apparently not subject to the forum's rules. This is especially disturbing as our authority was subverted by someone at the very same level as us in that forum and is akin to a police officer stopping another police officer from arresting a criminal!

    Most of you are probably saying at this point “WTF, a sponsor who spends 5 grand per year gets banned 1 month for closing a cross-posted thread in his sponsored forum?!? If this was Apple or Microsoft, the matter would already be dealt with legally but as we are a much smaller company, we attempted a more diplomatic approach. During the whole ordeal, we have been very patient and more than understanding in trying to resolve this issue. As our sponsorship agreement is between Dr. Sat – The Satellite Doctor and VerticalScope, our legal counsel had advised us to deal strictly with them in order to resolve this issue.

    We were hopeful that making an appeal to the forum administrator and VerticalScope management would allow to eventually get this matter resolved but alas, this is not the case. The only solution they are willing to accept is to remove our moderator rights from our sponsored FTA forum and create a brand new sub-forum in FTA which we would have moderator rights to instead. This is unacceptable to us as it does not solve the real issue at hand which is Jase88's improper issuance of a forum ban.

    Furthermore, we have made a significant effort over the years to build up traffic on the Digital Home Free To Air forum which was pretty much dead before we began sponsoring it so it would not be fair for us to flush that effort down the toilet and start fresh with a new forum. We have lost significant trust in VerticalScope as they apparently have little control over the forums that they apparently are supposed to own and refuse to accept responsibility for the actions of their volunteer forum moderators.

    I would like to state that even though Hugh sold Digital Home Canada to VerticalScope and pretends to no longer have anything to do in operating the forum, he is very much still in control via his moderator puppets who all still have their privileges on the forum. Ironically enough, he still had moderator access on the Free To Air forum at the beginning of this ordeal which has since then been removed but he still has moderator access to the Television Industry / Channels and Providers forum at http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=12 where he continues to post his tirade threads about anything he disagrees or has an issue with.



    Best regards,


    Dr. Sat - The Satellite Doctor
    Last edited by DrSat; 08-10-2014 at 01:50 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,458
    Certainly a very interesting post filled with many things that I was already aware of, and other things that I was not.

    The problem is that all of this could have perhaps been avoided if Dr. Sat was able to make it look like Hugh was simply making things up, for whatever reason(s). However, not only was Hugh able to make it look like Dr. Sat might be lying about his involvement with another company, but I was actually rooting for Hugh to destroy Dr. Sat, and also hoping that Dr. Sat's moderating privileges would be stripped (it still looks like Hugh was doing the forum members a favour by constantly trying to find out if Dr. Sat was indeed doing something fishy, rather than letting a sponsor get away with something much worse than breaking a few forum rules to get the "truth" out to the public).

    Jase88's later forum comments and actions also seem "justified," even though that ban seems to have been enforced for the "wrong" reason (although I would have probably been tempted to do the same thing that Jase88 did, simply based on Hugh's strong suspicions and provided links showing the deletions or alterations of posts -- as well as other feedback from many other business owners denying the accusations that Dr. Sat made against them). The moderators often let me get away with multiple infractions for a certain time period, but if I refuse to stop violating their rules (even though the moderators themselves violate more of them than I do, and also don't seem to notice or care when other moderators do much worse), they eventually feel the need to give me an infraction.

    The response of a typical member would be: Hey, PokerFace, if you don't like the rules, why do you still post here? My answer: Some rules should be broken, but if the moderators can't figure out which rules should be ignored and which ones shouldn't be, that's not my problem. I just say what I have to say, and don't really expect the moderators to be able to always know how to deal with it correctly ... even if I'm CLEARLY breaking the forum rules on purpose (for the greater good, or perhaps to satisfy my own ego).

    Justice is often blind, so it's impossible for me to know what's truly going on here, however, it's hard for me to find fault with any of Hugh's comments or direct questions that seemed to be answered (or ignored) by somebody trying to cover his tracks by perhaps deleting or altering the "evidence" that led to the suspicious minds in the first place.

    Dr. Sat seems like a rather sane individual based on his post here, but so does Hugh (based on his most recent posts on the other site -- which include more professional behaviour and actual kindness, as well as his admission that he was previously burnt-out and stayed away from the forum for about a year after he sold his website, so that he could basically refresh himself).

    I'm not sure it's wise for Dr. Sat to pay for advertising on a website that was so easily able to make it look like something fishy was going on (by uncovering the deletion/alteration of posts all over the Internet, while Dr. Sat claimed that it's best to let the lawyers handle any further disputes), so his forum ban might have been a blessing in disguise -- especially if Dr. Sat is in fact telling the truth about his lack of involvement with that other company, and it simply looks like Dr. Sat is lying because it's very difficult to defend yourself against a corrupt or misinformed system of justice that might be headed by like-minded individuals willing to do whatever it takes to keep the status quo.

    Disclaimer: I am not a fan of moderators ... unless they take the job, but refuse to do any moderating (other than occasionally blocking the super-obvious unprovoked attacks). I have also decided to recently stop posting on that other website due to similar experiences mentioned by Dr. Sat -- although I don't have $5,000/year to spare for advertising, so I don't have to worry about pulling any financial support.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 08-10-2014 at 04:59 PM. Reason: Changed $5,000/month to /year in last paragraph
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    4,728
    Been reading the DigitalHome forum a few days per month just to see the Titanic going down the ocean while eating popcorn...

    OK, so, it's a popular forum, some companies will try to get their business name mentionned, but when they get caught, they're considered spammers, and a keyword filter is set on the brand name so whoever mentions them gets the name replaced with *** and demerit points, eventho it's a good brand. In the end, you have to be extra careful and can only talk about the sponsored brands. Recommendations aren't always the good ones, and a good recommendation gets censored or deleted. Thanks for nothing !

    Something I find ridiculous is that sponsored URLs are now being added to keywords. For example, in the OTA section, any mention of the word "microwave" becomes a refered link to Amazon's microwave ovens when the text is about a microwave receiver (studio to transmitter). Ridiculous, inappropriate, ridiculous and disrespectful to the subscribers. Bell Media links to a "pgpartner" link that forwards to an Amazon sale of 32 Mb RAM Memory sticks ? Huh ?

    Two years and a half later, I still prefer good one-sided debates with TVViewer on this forum. :)
    "It's not a rerun if you haven't watched it yet." (© 2010 by TVViewer)
    "Ne jamais s'obstiner avec un épais. Il va vous abaisser à son niveau et vous battre avec l'expérience."

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by PokerFace View Post
    Certainly a very interesting post filled with many things that I was already aware of, and other things that I was not.

    The problem is that all of this could have perhaps been avoided if Dr. Sat was able to make it look like Hugh was simply making things up, for whatever reason(s). However, not only was Hugh able to make it look like Dr. Sat might be lying about his involvement with another company, but I was actually rooting for Hugh to destroy Dr. Sat, and also hoping that Dr. Sat's moderating privileges would be stripped (it still looks like Hugh was doing the forum members a favour by constantly trying to find out if Dr. Sat was indeed doing something fishy, rather than letting a sponsor get away with something much worse than breaking a few forum rules to get the "truth" out to the public).
    Why would we make anything up when we have nothing to hide? Let me explain how this whole ordeal started as it will put things into perspective. On June 25th, we started posting information on a review thread for a FTA satellite receiver we carry, the AzBox miniMe American Edition. As the review was and still is in progress, we had marked the thread as closed in order to avoid any members from posting until we had a chance to complete the review. This is obviously the case as we created a few placeholder posts with the text "Coming soon..". This would have all been fine and dandy but due to the fact that Hugh still had moderator access to the FTA forum at that time, he was able to post to the thread even though it was closed. As we did not feel comfortable having any member posts in that thread until we had a chance to finish the review, we deleted Hugh's post with a reason that the thread is currently closed for commenting until we finish posting our review and immediately sent him the following private message to address his concerns:


    2014-06-25, 10:09 PM
    DrSat

    Join Date: Feb 2011
    Location: Oakville, ON
    Posts: 1,191

    Removed post

    Hello Hugh,

    I removed your post in the AzBox miniMe American Edition review thread as it was off topic and your personal concerns should have been sent as a PM to myself instead.

    As AzBox Canada and Dr. Sat are two separate companies, there is absolutely no conflict of interest as the the sponsorship agreement is strictly between Dr. Sat - The Satellite Doctor and Verticalscope. Dr. Sat - The Satellite Doctor does NOT own or have any involvement with AzBox Canada other than being one of AzBox Canada's authorized dealers. Currently authorized dealers are listed at http://dealers.azbox.ca

    I have done reviews on other products that we sell such as the GeoSat Pro HDVR 1200 at http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=207074 and will continue to do reviews on other FTA satellite related items that we carry in order to educate forum members about products that they may be interested in.

    Thank you for your understanding in this matter.
    __________________
    Dr. Sat - Proud sponsor of the FTA satellite forum
    Dr. Sat
    - Fier commanditaire du forum FTA
    Hugh's only reply to us was the following:

    2014-06-26, 08:28 AM
    hugh
    Member #1

    Join Date: Dec 2001
    Location: Toronto
    Posts: 47,716


    Re: Removed post

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrSat
    Hello Hugh,

    I removed your post in the AzBox miniMe American Edition review thread as it was off topic and your personal concerns should have been sent as a PM to myself instead.

    As AzBox Canada and Dr. Sat are two separate companies, there is absolutely no conflict of interest as the the sponsorship agreement is strictly between Dr. Sat - The Satellite Doctor and Verticalscope. Dr. Sat - The Satellite Doctor does NOT own or have any involvement with AzBox Canada other than being one of AzBox Canada's authorized dealers. Currently authorized dealers are listed at http://dealers.azbox.ca

    I have done reviews on other products that we sell such as the GeoSat Pro HDVR 1200 at http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=207074 and will continue to do reviews on other FTA satellite related items that we carry in order to educate forum members about products that they may be interested in.

    Thank you for your understanding in this matter.

    You've really burned a bridge.
    __________________
    As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. My comments and opinions are my own and not those of the current site owners.
    I have disabled private messaging so for personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website or via twitter.
    We then tried to get more information in regards to his concern by sending the following reply which remains unanswered up to this day

    2014-06-26, 08:53 AM
    DrSat

    Join Date: Feb 2011
    Location: Oakville, ON
    Posts: 1,191

    Re: Removed post

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hugh
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrSat
    Hello Hugh,

    I removed your post in the AzBox miniMe American Edition review thread as it was off topic and your personal concerns should have been sent as a PM to myself instead.

    As AzBox Canada and Dr. Sat are two separate companies, there is absolutely no conflict of interest as the the sponsorship agreement is strictly between Dr. Sat - The Satellite Doctor and Verticalscope. Dr. Sat - The Satellite Doctor does NOT own or have any involvement with AzBox Canada other than being one of AzBox Canada's authorized dealers. Currently authorized dealers are listed at http://dealers.azbox.ca

    I have done reviews on other products that we sell such as the GeoSat Pro HDVR 1200 at http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=207074 and will continue to do reviews on other FTA satellite related items that we carry in order to educate forum members about products that they may be interested in.

    Thank you for your understanding in this matter.

    You've really burned a bridge.

    Not sure what you mean by this comment or even what your issue is with all this. Didn't you sell the digitalhome.ca forum to VeticalScope?
    __________________
    Dr. Sat - Proud sponsor of the FTA satellite forum
    Dr. Sat
    - Fier commanditaire du forum FTA
    From that point on, Hugh went on with a mission to discredit and make us and AzBox Canada look bad by opening his tirade thread simply because we deleted a post he should have never been able to make in the first place as the thread was closed. The final straw was when Hugh started posting crap into some of our old dormant threads, forcing us to edit or delete these and making it look like we are trying to cover our tracks as a vile attempt to defend his groundless accusations. Also to make things worse, a fair amount of posts in his tirade thread made by members who were defending us were deleted shortly after they were made.

    As the issue was starting to get out of control, we consulted with our legal counsel who advised us to deal with VerticalScope directly as our sponsorship agreement is strictly between Dr. Sat - The Satellite Doctor and VerticalScope. We also posted a message on the tirade thread that we are strictly dealing with VerticalScope Inc. in regards to this issue.

    Just to point out that our sponsorship agreement with VerticalScope allows us to post information about the products we carry on the Free To Air forum. If we include prices and direct purchase links to our website, we are obligated to prefix the thread's subject with SPONSORED: in order to indicate it is a sponsored post. However, as our AzBox miniMe American Edition review thread has no prices or direct purchase links to our website, it does NOT have to be prefixed as SPONSORED.



    Best regards,


    Dr. Sat - The Satellite Doctor

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by InMontreal View Post

    Something I find ridiculous is that sponsored URLs are now being added to keywords. For example, in the OTA section, any mention of the word "microwave" becomes a refered link to Amazon's microwave ovens when the text is about a microwave receiver (studio to transmitter). Ridiculous, inappropriate, ridiculous and disrespectful to the subscribers. Bell Media links to a "pgpartner" link that forwards to an Amazon sale of 32 Mb RAM Memory sticks ? Huh ?
    That would be VigLink, an automated service which allows website owners to add an extra source of income in addition to traditional website banner advertising.
    It works by the website owner adding a script in the header of each page which automatically parses content for specific keywords similar to how Google Ads work. However, subtle links to VigLink advertisers are embedded directly in the content instead of having a banner ad.

    It's a really sneaky way of advertising but keyword sponsors pay big bucks to advertise this way as it is very hard for end users to block this type of advertising using ad blocking software in their browser. However as the parsing is done automatically on the fly using the page's content based on keywords, the links inserted are often not relevant to the topic being discussed as you mentioned with your "microwave" example.


    Best regards,


    Dr. Sat - The Satellite Doctor
    Last edited by DrSat; 08-13-2014 at 03:10 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    12,204
    Hugh is a psychotic control freak. I am not surprised at all he acted the ridiculous way he did. That's what psychotic control freaks do.

    It would be really interesting to see what VerticalScope has to say. Hugh isn't paying them $5,000 a year, you are. The money you spend on DigitalHome could be directed to other advertising platforms. It's your business and i'm sure you know what's best, but I think you should seriously consider pulling your sponsorship at least temporarily to see what impact it has on your business. To be honest, right now it appears to me at least that DigitalHome is causing severe damage to your brand. The fact that you are paying them while they discredit your business is in my opinion absurd. If anything you deserve a refund.
    My views are my own and do not represent any company.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,458
    Trying to defend yourself on the Internet is never a fun thing to do ... especially when you're the only one who knows for sure that you are telling the truth (or at least the part(s) that you can talk about publicly).

    How many times have you a seen a movie where an innocent guy comes home, turns on the light and then sees the dead body of somebody he just threatened to kill a few hours ago? The guy panics and then tries to get rid of the body because he knows he will be the #1 suspect, especially since he also picked up the murder weapon, shortly before he noticed the dead body. The police then catch him trying to move the body, and that basically seals his fate, until some brilliant lawyer proves his innocence. Moral of the story: Don't try to move the dead body, even if you stupidly picked up the murder weapon.

    Hugh and others made it look like AzBox Canada and Dr. Sat are one and the same, or perhaps, knowing that AzBox Canada will never respond to any questions, it's easy for somebody to claim that a competitor is selling Chinese clones, even without any proof. And as already mentioned, Hugh then started another thread to see if anybody from AzBox Canada would respond to questions, and asked if it's just Dr. Sat who responds to questions dealing with the AzBox equipment. I still think that calling it a cross-posted thread isn't entirely accurate, especially since Dr. Sat claims to not be directly involved with AzBox Canada, anyway. Sure the question was asked in the earlier thread, but since Dr. Sat controls that thread too, I think it was clever to start another thread that would hopefully get the mysterious AzBox Canada to respond in a separate thread (even though nobody expected them to).

    After rereading portions of the various threads, Dr. Sat still looks guilty of something. Maybe he just moved the dead body when he should have instead called the police, but until this real movie is over, I'm going to hope that a brilliant lawyer (perhaps one of Dr. Sat's relatives) will somehow prove Dr. Sat's innocence and also get him a nice settlement.

    I hate it when people look guilty, even though they seem like decent, caring individuals, caught up in a scandal that gets tougher to escape from, the more they try to prove their innocence.

    Good luck, I'm rooting for you! I like underdogs.
    Last edited by PokerFace; 08-13-2014 at 09:54 PM. Reason: typo
    Warning: I'm not playing with a full deck.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    7
    Well it's official, we have decided to cease our forum sponsorship with Digital Home as our numerous efforts in trying to resolve this issue with VerticalScope were not successful.

    We will be moving our forum sponsorship and support to SatelliteHome, Canada's newest community for everything satellite. Over the past several years, we have voluntarily assisted many people online with our previous FTA forum sponsorship at Digital Home Canada and will continue in assisting members with our move to the SatelliteHome community.

    SatelliteHome.ca officially launches on Friday, August 22nd 2014 at 6:00pm EST.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •