The problem is that, and it is entirely your call, you only release some information whilst alluding to other products (unnamed) either having problems or inferring that they do.
This is very misleading to the public in general and to those amongst us who are quick to castigate a product (or company) but then do a 360 degree turn based on something they read on the web without being able to validate the new 'facts'.
But is it illegal? No.
Is it factually incorrect? i'd say no because no specifics mentioned.
In effect, no different to the bull put out by any other company or business.
And therein lies the problem.Matt has formed a view that you did and duly posted.
He has form for castigating a product in preference to another even when he may not be in possession of all the facts.
Preference of one brand over another without starting why is not the same argument.
One of the problems with what he's doing is it doesn't give a true reflection of products in general.Mentioning one brand/product specifically as secure whilst suggesting others that remained unnamed gives those who don't understand a false view.
In effect, a potentially false but damaging reputation.
Probably because the reduced numbers made the NEC too expensive. Don't see why people claim to be excited by the move though - unless it's the fact less northern monkeys will be there.
No, the manufacturer won't pay for your time, they're not contracted or obligated to.
Whilst your problem may be genuine, many are caused by the installer, or to be more precise, the tard sent to install it. Hence the T & CD the manufacturers cover themselves by.
Sorry, i disagree. Every reason for you to be arsey.
If you paid with a pocketful of loose change and told him not to bother counting it out as it is all correct i'm sure he'd make sure.