3 Primers> Language Logic Treatise < 6 FREE SITES > 12 COURT CASES: LOGIC defeating LANGUAGE & RHETORIC loses <<<

ALL Shakespeare-Free.

Shakespeare’s Concordance

Silva - Rhetorica Rhetoric - Forest

Force of Destiny

Over 2000 FREE books, click Picure above

Logic Law

Contradiction & Species   Anacoluthon    Hysteron Proteron    Anthypophora    Heterogenium

Fallacies of logic  

The Science  of  Logic

 18 April 2018


Thames Water Customer Relations Customer Service PO Box 492 Swindon SN38 8TU

Telephone:  0800 009 3805 Fax:  01793 424291 Email: Customer.Feedback@thameswater.co.uk

Ref: 33346310

       38 Blue Peter Road,

Dear Mr Parson

I’m writing in response to your email, received dated 23 March addressed to our Chief Executive Officer Steve Robertson. As a member of the Executive office, Steve has asked me to respond on his behalf. I’m sorry you remain unhappy with the response which I sent you dated 23 March 2018. I apologise if my previous email caused any confusion, this was not my intention.

I’m also sorry I haven’t responded to your 2 previous emails also dated 23 March 2018. The reason being is on one of your emails you stated you didn’t want any more letters as we are wasting your time, and the other you signed off no more junk mail. I was respecting your wishes and refrained from sending you further emails.                                                                                                           

                                                                                   [CONTROVERTED BY THIS email.]

In one of your emails you pointed out that we addressed the bills incorrectly. Firstly, I’m so sorry for your sad loss. Unfortunately we weren’t aware the customer had sadly passed away, meaning we weren’t aware the name on the account needed to be amended.

In my last email dated 23 March 2018 I apologised for the error made on you final bill, however such error was amended and compensated. (By& to us, against you)

As previously advised it’s the customer’s responsibility to inform us that they are moving out of their property so it allows us to close their account correctly. It’s also the customer’s responsibility to provide us with a final read so that we can bill the customer correctly. However as you didn’t inform us of your move, we closed it on an estimated read based on your previous Average Daily Use (ADU). As you disputed the final bill, as a gesture of goodwill I cancelled your final bill of £90.29 plus the following bill of £48.18 totally £140.47. This means you received a free water service from 17 August 2017 to 28 December 2017. [Yet another false representation.]

Due to the amount I applied to your account, further compensation [to ourselves] will not be granted.

Whilst I appreciate this may not be the response you’re looking for, I trust this helps explain our position. In view of this, we are unable to write to you again about this. Your next steps should you remain dissatisfied would be to approach the Consumer Council for Water (CCWater) as detailed in our Quality Promise leaflet in the below link. I’m sorry I’m unable to help you further with this matter.

Yours sincerely                                                                      No person EVER asked you for help!

Maria Horgan

Senior Case Manager – Executive Office

To view the Thames Water quality promise leaflet, please go to http://www.thameswater.co.uk/qualitypromise

Visit us online www.thameswater.co.uk , follow us on twitter www.twitter.com/thameswater or find us on www.facebook.com/thameswater. We’re happy to help you 24/7.

Thames Water Limited (company number 2366623) and Thames Water Utilities Limited (company number 2366661) are companies registered in England and Wales, both are registered at Clearwater Court, Vastern Road, Reading, Berkshire RG1 8DB. This email is confidential and is intended only for the use of the person it was sent to. Any views or opinions in this email are those of the author and don’t necessarily represent those of Thames Water Limited or its subsidiaries. If you aren’t the intended recipient of this email, please don’t copy, use, forward or disclose its contents to any other person – please destroy and delete the message and any attachments from your system.

Chief Financial Office

Thames Water & Similar disparity template letters.

Respondents page titles: NOTICE of ESTOPPEL subject to conditions stated below,  & REFRAIN CPR PD40A   2/2

April 18, 2018

Dear Sir,

I am, and you should be, alarmed at the total lack of expertise used in your office. My readers will be amused. DRAFT for proof reading.

I will keep this very very simple, for those yet to take a GCSE.

1. Your text: you stated you didn’t want any more letters as we are wasting your time, and the other you signed off no more junk mail. I was respecting your wishes and refrained from sending you further emails.

1. In your construction, I ...refrained clearly is the verb, meaning stopped  NOT the noun, meaning a phrase or theme / refrain, often repeated, which mischief chose, to add insult to injury.

2. A significant property of this email Apr 18th is that it FALSIFIES I ...refrained as usual, where it is clear your staff have no idea of the basic principles of classification, preferring to guess whatever fits your reasoning-agenda, falsified by the facts.

2. Is followed by more of the same mental detritus in this email dated 18th Inst., which overturns your representation, I was respecting your wishes and refrained[& falsifies]

1. Your author needs to learn to DO what she says she was doing. I suggest start about 50-135 A. D. with: First learn the meaning of what you say, and then speak.” Epictetus.

2. Then attempt to ensure what she says corresponds with what she does: in  “You are what you do, not what you say you'll do.” C.G.Jung

3. Your text: I’m sorry you remain unhappypresumes your author is a medical practitioner capable of diagnosing my past & present states of being unhappy at a distance, never having seen me, and my never having expressed in any language anything to you of the kind.


4. NOW compare your text: ...This means you received a free water service from 17 August 2017 to 28 December 2017.

5. with MY text: Your reference address was sold in 2016. You can confirm that with Land Registry.

6. YOUR: – thoroughly investigate your case – Combined with your – Quality Promise 


demonstrates your pure reason & logic that: ...WE …received a free water service from 17 August 2017 to 28 December 2017.  WHILE the property was sold to someone ELSE in 2016!

You guess & allege a debt, threaten litigation, then cancel it pretending it is a favour to us. Next guess a credit in our favour which you write of for us, pretending that also is a favour to US while pocketing it. Your logic matches that of a final court ruling that a man is dead, when he is alive.

Your representation – ...you received a free water service... –  IS UNMISTAKABLY FALSE.

Not even your chop-logic can make it true. Contrary to your statutory obligations & tort law you have neither disputed, controverted nor complied with my requests of Mar 14th, which as such is all taken as admitted, being anticipated in CPR 16.5. (5).

It is also taken as admitted that you & your staff carefully watched over your demonstration of  item 6. above to be sure the words disagreed with the actions & proved to be antonyms.

Unsigned as per your first letter.

The classification system for word-meanings is far simpler than that for living entities. Of course, like living entities, it presupposes a fixed standard against which instantiations are compared for similarities & differences. The tool used is that shown in the extract on Class Immediate Inference, combined with a Dictionary like Oxford English Dictionary or Cambridge Dictionary.

Simply verify/compare the conduct with the classification/description of it. Where the conduct is either opposite or contrary to the word used, the probability is high, if not certainty, that the classification is an antonym to the conduct or deeds.

E. G. If I say I was respecting your wishes and refrained from sending you further emails. [while sending you this email, then I am CONTROVERTING my own two representations – the 1st  by –  I am not respecting your wishes the 2nd by –  this email is a further email –  in a similar manner to saying ‘yes’ while nodding my head left & right, the customary meaning of ‘NO’.]

Such words or phrases as we will investigate, quality, promise, you received, in this real life case, are likewise controverted /contradicted by their facts & their results.

Do you read & believe their self description or do you judge their conduct by your very own direct observation of it?

1. A significant property of the meaning of ..you received a free water service is that it be true, i. e. it must correspond/agree with the facts,where the facts in this case falsify the representation categorically, as none of the addressees occupied that address at that time.

2. A significant property of the meaning of investigate your case is that you conduct a search or inquire into… to discover the truth, had you done that with my suggested Land Registry, your conclusion would have proved your representations false relating to what you alleged we did, or received, they could not possibly be true.

The conclusion of the above is your method of arriving at TRUTH is FALSIFIED by what you DID & what you did NOT do, within your statutory obligations of tort law – Duty of CARE. You DO the opposite of what you say you will do, in the hope that people believe your words and do not compare them with your deeds.  Your words are contrary to those facts which cannot be disputed.

1. i. e. correspond/agree with the facts,where the facts in this case falsifies the representation categorically, as none of the addressees were at that address.

A significant property of the meaning of quality promise is that it be characterised with connotations of  excellence of character; good nature, virtue.

I. E. the facts 1 & 2 in this case demonstrates a clear falsification of the representations, as none of the terms – you received a free water service or  investigate your case – occurred in reality, both representations demonstrate a willful use of language to persuade the unwary to believe the language & overlook the actuality of their misrepresentations. The promise is their assurance which is all the more unlikely as they discard the investigation, passing it to another body adding more distance to their already proved defective perceptions at close quarters.

The system in use here is one of belief without support, where knowledge by direct observation confirms the simple fact these persons are what they do, and not what they say or imply they do, in clear disparity.  While being careless, contrary to tort law – duty of care to others, they reward themselves.

Cambridge Dictionary: investigate  – the act or process of examining a crime, problem, statement, etc. carefully, especially to discover the truth:

P1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9