On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:42:21 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>Ford can't.

>There is NOTHING in any agreement that even vaguely gives Ford that right

>assuming I and not Ford own the vehicle.

>If Ford did, I would seek a competent attorney.

 

Yet your being some unabashed fanboy and Microsoft apologist you

willing give them rights to your first born or whatever else they

want. If you only had the intelligence to understand how stupid that

is, but we both know you don't.

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> Ford can't.

> There is NOTHING in any agreement that even vaguely gives Ford that

> right assuming I and not Ford own the vehicle.

> If Ford did, I would seek a competent attorney.

>

> You already know that but see it convenient to ignore that fact in a

> vain attempt with this irrelevant comparison.

>

 

Wasn't exactly in vain, you answered it, and you are correct of course,

however one could argue, as you are doing for Microsoft, that Ford took

that measure "For your own good" since an accident might have occurred

had they not done so, and should Ford decide to build that clause into

future sales we therefore conclude that you'd have no problem with it.

 

Remember MS add bits to their EULAs all the time so if Ford did that and

included "The buyer agrees that in the event of an alternator failure

the entire vehicle becomes subject to this agreement" for their

replacement alternators some 5 years after you bought the car you would

consider the original sale "Deception".

 

The real problem is that Microsoft, in the settings dialogue do not say

"You can pretend to turn this off but not really", they clearly imply

that updates can be turned off which they cannot.

 

Any security minded professional would consider unannounced "Back doors"

into an OS to be a concern, simply because they are there, so frankly

your insistence that this is NOT an important issue and that it is the

users' fault for not reading deceptive language in such a frame of mind

as to "Expect" Microsoft to be dishonest goes against your own claim,

that we should believe Microsoft IS honest.

 

Are you saying then that in future we should "Expect" Microsoft to

mislead users with legal agreements, it sure seems like you are, and

that being the case the aforementioned professional with security in

mind has only one choice...

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:59:07 -0700, FIsc <Linda.De.Coster@gmail.com>

> wrote:

>

>> On 13 sep, 18:05, Bruce Chambers <bchamb...@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

>>> Silicon neuron wrote:

>>>

>>>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'

>>>> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

>>> Actually, this is *not* being done _without_ user consent. Just the

>>> opposite. Every user of each operating systems has been given advance

>>> notice that such things could happen, and has consented to it.

>>>

>>> Read the Vista EULA. Section 7 makes it clear that this could happen:

>>>

>>> ========================================================================

>>>

>>> You may switch off these features or not use them.

>> And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even

>> when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with

>> their own rules?

>

>

> Microsoft is infamous for proclaiming "rules" only to break the rules

> themselves. Classic example and what's getting a lot of noise now is

> UAC and standard user. For YEARS Windows and every Microsoft product

> was by DESIGN written to run as administrator. Until Vista, Windows

> installed itself with one user, will full administrative rights unless

> you changed it. Now the boys of Redmond bellow loudly that's not a

> good idea, yet it was Microsoft that not only started the practice but

> encouraged it. The biggest hypocrites of all are found at Microsoft!

>

 

<You should be worrying about Identity Theft (some real damage) running

around out here on the Internet, instead of the BS.>

FIsc wrote:

> On 16 sep, 20:43, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupi...@hotnomail.com>

> wrote:

>> It is not what I would expect but that is not the same as what is legal.

>> Do not confuse what we want or expect with what is legal because quite often

>> they are not the same.

>>

>> --

>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]

>> Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Serviceshttp://www3.telus.net/dandemar

>>

>

> Microsoft indicates themselves a user can refuse to have automatic

> updates installed.

>

> When a computer is accessed without the proper consent of the user

> isn't this what hackers do and isn't this considered to be illegal?

>

>

 

 

It's deception, plain and simple, no matter how much Jones cares to

pontificate about it.

 

The fact is that nobody has yet proven that this behavior is necessary.

Past behavior has been that Windows / Microsoft update will tell you

that your updating mechanism is out of date when you first check, no

reason has yet been given why that is no longer viable.

"...should Ford decide to build that clause..."

Totally irrelevant again as is much of your point.

Vehicles can have some commonalities and this is not on.

 

"...if Ford did that..."

then we would need to comply to the point of the law.

But for now irrelevant.

 

"NOT an important issue and that it is the users' fault"

I never said that, ANOTHER assumption on your part.

 

"...updates can be turned off which they cannot."

But they can and you know it.

Your conveniently ignoring that fact does nothing for your point.

Turn off the service and it is done with the usual note it will need to be

enabled before Windows Update can function.

 

"Are you saying then that in future..."

Not at all.

You should stop such assumptions.

You have shown yourself to be wrong in the past when making assumptions

about me.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:OBgdYJK%23HHA.2004@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Wasn't exactly in vain, you answered it, and you are correct of course,

> however one could argue, as you are doing for Microsoft, that Ford took

> that measure "For your own good" since an accident might have occurred had

> they not done so, and should Ford decide to build that clause into future

> sales we therefore conclude that you'd have no problem with it.

>

> Remember MS add bits to their EULAs all the time so if Ford did that and

> included "The buyer agrees that in the event of an alternator failure the

> entire vehicle becomes subject to this agreement" for their replacement

> alternators some 5 years after you bought the car you would consider the

> original sale "Deception".

>

> The real problem is that Microsoft, in the settings dialogue do not say

> "You can pretend to turn this off but not really", they clearly imply that

> updates can be turned off which they cannot.

>

> Any security minded professional would consider unannounced "Back doors"

> into an OS to be a concern, simply because they are there, so frankly your

> insistence that this is NOT an important issue and that it is the users'

> fault for not reading deceptive language in such a frame of mind as to

> "Expect" Microsoft to be dishonest goes against your own claim, that we

> should believe Microsoft IS honest.

>

> Are you saying then that in future we should "Expect" Microsoft to mislead

> users with legal agreements, it sure seems like you are, and that being

> the case the aforementioned professional with security in mind has only

> one choice...

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:44:17 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

wrote:

>Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

>> Ford can't.

>> There is NOTHING in any agreement that even vaguely gives Ford that

>> right assuming I and not Ford own the vehicle.

>> If Ford did, I would seek a competent attorney.

>>

>> You already know that but see it convenient to ignore that fact in a

>> vain attempt with this irrelevant comparison.

>>

>

>Wasn't exactly in vain, you answered it, and you are correct of course,

>however one could argue, as you are doing for Microsoft, that Ford took

>that measure "For your own good" since an accident might have occurred

>had they not done so, and should Ford decide to build that clause into

>future sales we therefore conclude that you'd have no problem with it.

>

>Remember MS add bits to their EULAs all the time so if Ford did that and

>included "The buyer agrees that in the event of an alternator failure

>the entire vehicle becomes subject to this agreement" for their

>replacement alternators some 5 years after you bought the car you would

>consider the original sale "Deception".

 

It seems the fanboy crowd is hung up on the principle involved. They

foolishly think Microsoft can do whatever it wants, much like George

Bush just ignores Congress or fires generals that don't do what he

wants. Relationships are built on TRUST. Two times now in recent

memory Microsoft has betrayed that trust. A couple weeks ago in

sheepishly admitted they 'my mistake, oh it was just human error'

marked perfectly legal copies of Vista as counterfeit and now

admitting they may on the sneak update your computer even when they've

told you that you have the option to turn off automatic updates. If or

not it is a good idea is totally irrelevant. It's the sneakiness of

what Microsoft always seems to get caught doing that pisses off

customers. Except of course for the moronic fanboy crowd that seems

too stupid to known or understand the consequences. The EULA is not a

one sided agreement. All contracts have rights for both parties.

Microsoft keeps pissing on customer rights. THAT is what should and

does piss off smarter customers. Dummies will of course remain dummies

because they are dummies.

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:13:20 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

 

>You should stop such assumptions.

 

You should put in a voucher for being a Microsoft apologist. You know

lobbyists working on behave of some other government need to register

as foreign agents. MVPs with their heads stuck up their ass should be

forced to register as Microsoft agents.

>You have shown yourself to be wrong in the past when making assumptions

>about me.

 

You are judged by what you post. Damn man, I've rarely see anybody get

off on pontificating and trying to hold court more then you obviously

do.

A great deal changed when Bush signed the recent security amendment Bill for

the NSA--at his request. Nothing is confidential any more. Use hushmail.com

if you want but you're still on an open system--we can still dream, though.

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:jp8re3lhtkbbibmd3nneklttbupsf0889v@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:44:17 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>

> wrote:

>

>>Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

>>> Ford can't.

>>> There is NOTHING in any agreement that even vaguely gives Ford that

>>> right assuming I and not Ford own the vehicle.

>>> If Ford did, I would seek a competent attorney.

>>>

>>> You already know that but see it convenient to ignore that fact in a

>>> vain attempt with this irrelevant comparison.

>>>

>>

>>Wasn't exactly in vain, you answered it, and you are correct of course,

>>however one could argue, as you are doing for Microsoft, that Ford took

>>that measure "For your own good" since an accident might have occurred

>>had they not done so, and should Ford decide to build that clause into

>>future sales we therefore conclude that you'd have no problem with it.

>>

>>Remember MS add bits to their EULAs all the time so if Ford did that and

>>included "The buyer agrees that in the event of an alternator failure

>>the entire vehicle becomes subject to this agreement" for their

>>replacement alternators some 5 years after you bought the car you would

>>consider the original sale "Deception".

>

> It seems the fanboy crowd is hung up on the principle involved. They

> foolishly think Microsoft can do whatever it wants, much like George

> Bush just ignores Congress or fires generals that don't do what he

> wants. Relationships are built on TRUST. Two times now in recent

> memory Microsoft has betrayed that trust. A couple weeks ago in

> sheepishly admitted they 'my mistake, oh it was just human error'

> marked perfectly legal copies of Vista as counterfeit and now

> admitting they may on the sneak update your computer even when they've

> told you that you have the option to turn off automatic updates. If or

> not it is a good idea is totally irrelevant. It's the sneakiness of

> what Microsoft always seems to get caught doing that pisses off

> customers. Except of course for the moronic fanboy crowd that seems

> too stupid to known or understand the consequences. The EULA is not a

> one sided agreement. All contracts have rights for both parties.

> Microsoft keeps pissing on customer rights. THAT is what should and

> does piss off smarter customers. Dummies will of course remain dummies

> because they are dummies.

>

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> "...should Ford decide to build that clause..."

> Totally irrelevant again as is much of your point.

> Vehicles can have some commonalities and this is not on.

 

 

 

Quite the contrary, Microsoft do write EULA additions that impact the

entire installation, which is fundamentally doubtful since any other

deal you "Sign" is done once signed unless BOTH parties decide on a new

one. However the EULA is far less of an issue than the clearly intended

deception in the dialog...

 

 

 

> "...if Ford did that..."

> then we would need to comply to the point of the law.

> But for now irrelevant.

>

> "NOT an important issue and that it is the users' fault"

> I never said that, ANOTHER assumption on your part.

 

 

 

Certainly sounds like you don't consider it important.

 

 

 

 

> "...updates can be turned off which they cannot."

> But they can and you know it.

> Your conveniently ignoring that fact does nothing for your point.

> Turn off the service and it is done with the usual note it will need to

> be enabled before Windows Update can function.

 

 

 

That is not what it says on the dialog and YOU KNOW IT. That's the whole

point and is what makes the deception clearly intentional. No amount of

sidestepping is going to change that.

 

 

 

> "Are you saying then that in future..."

> Not at all.

> You should stop such assumptions.

> You have shown yourself to be wrong in the past when making assumptions

> about me.

>

 

Not really, I assumed you to be a pompous self righteous ass and haven't

yet seen any indication that I got it wrong :)

 

 

People buy an OS for various reasons, Windows has tried to be all

singing all dancing, suitable for entertainment use and for important

business. Microsoft has long led the field in preaching "Trustworthy

Computing", despite the fact that for many years they concentrated on

the usability side rather than on the security side. This is proven time

and again by holes such as those left in IE and OE for years. Then,

suddenly, security became a selling point. A lot of more recent business

has been based around this "Security" model and I have found MS servers

to be as secure as anyone else's, with the condition that they are

patched, W2000 was, one hoped, the end of dubious default settings

leaving only actual flaws to deal with, however the philosophy of

"Integrating" a browser with the OS itself still had some of us doubting.

 

Of what remained, well, there was and still is ActiveX. This should have

been kept quite separate from the auto update functionality. Sure the

same kind of technology might be used, but frankly being able to "Scan"

my system for updates is, in effect, a vulnerability scan. I trust MS to

fix what they find, not abuse it, otherwise I would not entertain having

their OS in use at all. However if ActiveX can raise privileges to the

extent that it can alter vital OS components there is potential for a

problem. This is of course mitigated by the fact that the user has to

answer the question whether to go ahead or not but to make that judgment

one has to "Trust" Microsoft in the same way one "Trusts" their doctor,

to "Do no harm".

 

The problem with the lack of separation is that the update method only

raises the same kinds of ActiveX warnings that other things raise, with

the expectation that an ordinary user or a skilled user in a hurry will

correctly interpret what he sees. Why not clarify this by saying

"Microsoft Update needs your permission to..."

 

That way it's clear what is going on to the less skilled and easy to

read for the hurried. This is the same problem that continues with UAC

and why most, given the chance, will turn it off.

 

That is not to say other OS are considerably better, only that Windows

"Could" be better in this regard than any. We should be aiming to make

Windows better shouldn't we? Not explaining to people why it isn't but

that's what you get and would know that if you read the manual.

 

So people have expectations and they expect MS to not pull the kind of

sneaky trick some hacker might pull. True enough in this case no harm

seems to have been done, but were I the kind with ill intent I'd be

disassembling BITS to see how it got that privilege elevation and how it

used it stealthily. UAC for all the crap boasting about it did

absolutely NOTHING to improve security in this case, and there will be

others.

"Certainly sounds like you don't consider it important."

Your selective reading has led you to false assumptions before.

 

"Quite the contrary"

Not at all, your comparison with Ford was irrelevant.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:uuBQsEL%23HHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Quite the contrary, Microsoft do write EULA additions that impact the

> entire installation, which is fundamentally doubtful since any other deal

> you "Sign" is done once signed unless BOTH parties decide on a new one.

> However the EULA is far less of an issue than the clearly intended

> deception in the dialog...

>

>

>

>

>> "...if Ford did that..."

>> then we would need to comply to the point of the law.

>> But for now irrelevant.

>>

>> "NOT an important issue and that it is the users' fault"

>> I never said that, ANOTHER assumption on your part.

>

>

>

> Certainly sounds like you don't consider it important.

>

>

>

>

>

>> "...updates can be turned off which they cannot."

>> But they can and you know it.

>> Your conveniently ignoring that fact does nothing for your point.

>> Turn off the service and it is done with the usual note it will need to

>> be enabled before Windows Update can function.

>

>

>

> That is not what it says on the dialog and YOU KNOW IT. That's the whole

> point and is what makes the deception clearly intentional. No amount of

> sidestepping is going to change that.

>

>

>

>

>> "Are you saying then that in future..."

>> Not at all.

>> You should stop such assumptions.

>> You have shown yourself to be wrong in the past when making assumptions

>> about me.

>>

>

> Not really, I assumed you to be a pompous self righteous ass and haven't

> yet seen any indication that I got it wrong :)

>

>

> People buy an OS for various reasons, Windows has tried to be all singing

> all dancing, suitable for entertainment use and for important business.

> Microsoft has long led the field in preaching "Trustworthy Computing",

> despite the fact that for many years they concentrated on the usability

> side rather than on the security side. This is proven time and again by

> holes such as those left in IE and OE for years. Then, suddenly, security

> became a selling point. A lot of more recent business has been based

> around this "Security" model and I have found MS servers to be as secure

> as anyone else's, with the condition that they are patched, W2000 was, one

> hoped, the end of dubious default settings leaving only actual flaws to

> deal with, however the philosophy of "Integrating" a browser with the OS

> itself still had some of us doubting.

>

> Of what remained, well, there was and still is ActiveX. This should have

> been kept quite separate from the auto update functionality. Sure the same

> kind of technology might be used, but frankly being able to "Scan" my

> system for updates is, in effect, a vulnerability scan. I trust MS to fix

> what they find, not abuse it, otherwise I would not entertain having their

> OS in use at all. However if ActiveX can raise privileges to the extent

> that it can alter vital OS components there is potential for a problem.

> This is of course mitigated by the fact that the user has to answer the

> question whether to go ahead or not but to make that judgment one has to

> "Trust" Microsoft in the same way one "Trusts" their doctor, to "Do no

> harm".

>

> The problem with the lack of separation is that the update method only

> raises the same kinds of ActiveX warnings that other things raise, with

> the expectation that an ordinary user or a skilled user in a hurry will

> correctly interpret what he sees. Why not clarify this by saying

> "Microsoft Update needs your permission to..."

>

> That way it's clear what is going on to the less skilled and easy to read

> for the hurried. This is the same problem that continues with UAC and why

> most, given the chance, will turn it off.

>

> That is not to say other OS are considerably better, only that Windows

> "Could" be better in this regard than any. We should be aiming to make

> Windows better shouldn't we? Not explaining to people why it isn't but

> that's what you get and would know that if you read the manual.

>

> So people have expectations and they expect MS to not pull the kind of

> sneaky trick some hacker might pull. True enough in this case no harm

> seems to have been done, but were I the kind with ill intent I'd be

> disassembling BITS to see how it got that privilege elevation and how it

> used it stealthily. UAC for all the crap boasting about it did absolutely

> NOTHING to improve security in this case, and there will be others.

Charlie Tame wrote:

>>> You may switch off these features or not use them.

>>

>> And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even

>> when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with

>> their own rules?

 

Hell with the rules Charlie, both windows update and

the client side service are obviously obsolete and

insecure, apparently since at least 2001 (WinXP release).

 

Just how hard would it be for a tech' wizard pirate

or unfriendly .mil to slither a custom update while

client is downloading mainstream updates?

How about a maninmiddle loop where downloaded updates

were decompressed then modified and recompressed then

sent back on their merry way? I dunno', now I wonder.

Cloning/faking routers or servers is trivial these days.

 

Don't get sidetracked with politics or legal BS,

we need a better and transparent system yesterday.

As long as we demand an easy to 'use and apply'

system for updates and security we will have an easy

to manipulate or abuse system...MS did us a favor.

 

NT Canuck

'Seek and ye shall find'

"despite old Jonesy using it in an attempt"

These little snips by you are becoming more common.

Your need to do so while selectively reading are more of a reflection on

you.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:OmKe92I%23HHA.5404@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Well done, everybody else seems to have missed that despite old Jonesy

> using it in an attempt to bolster his case.

>

> That phrase does not say what specifically you can turn off BUT it sure

> does imply that you can turn all of it off.

>

> Now, on many occasions I have seen the "Windows is checking if you have

> the latest version of the updating software" or whatever and I wait and it

> says I need to install some ActiveX to proceed with the process. I see

> nothing wrong with this and see no reason why, suddenly, MS decided to not

> ask that question and do it anyway. When I say check for updates it's

> obviously going to check that the updater on my machine is the current

> version, why go sneaking about the back door UNLESS you have something to

> hide?

>

> You can't always leave auto install on, if a restart is needed and shuts

> down an industrial process control you're in trouble, bt most people could

> and probably should, however sneaking about in the background is NOT going

> to encourage that :)

NT Canuck wrote:

> Charlie Tame wrote:

>

>>>> You may switch off these features or not use them.

>>>

>>> And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even

>>> when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with

>>> their own rules?

>

> Hell with the rules Charlie, both windows update and

> the client side service are obviously obsolete and

> insecure, apparently since at least 2001 (WinXP release).

>

> Just how hard would it be for a tech' wizard pirate

> or unfriendly .mil to slither a custom update while

> client is downloading mainstream updates?

> How about a maninmiddle loop where downloaded updates

> were decompressed then modified and recompressed then

> sent back on their merry way? I dunno', now I wonder.

> Cloning/faking routers or servers is trivial these days.

>

> Don't get sidetracked with politics or legal BS,

> we need a better and transparent system yesterday.

> As long as we demand an easy to 'use and apply'

> system for updates and security we will have an easy

> to manipulate or abuse system...MS did us a favor.

>

> NT Canuck

> 'Seek and ye shall find'

 

 

Well if you read my reply to Jupiter I have a couple of issues with

ActiveX being indistinguishable from the update software as far as

messages are concerned, I do think it should be possible to have some

single separate thing to do the job. That's not to say it's possible to

make any communication 100% secure, but at least IT folks would have a

clue when something was reported to them.

 

We have a locked server at work and the terminals can't browse the

internet normally, but if they hit windows update IE opens up and away

they go. It was a nurse who found this :)

 

I think IE and standard technology being involved with updates for a

modern OS is not a good idea...

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> "despite old Jonesy using it in an attempt"

> These little snips by you are becoming more common.

> Your need to do so while selectively reading are more of a reflection on

> you.

>

 

 

You're getting more pompous, so what?

 

The fact is that your attempts to play down the seriousness of the

world's leading supplier of operating systems leaving security concerns

by choice in 90% of the country's computers is irresponsible. Fair

enough, nothing serious happened "This time", but only weeks ago their

sneaky software declared a lot of their "Flagship" products illegal,

causing REAL loss of functionality BY DESIGN. What are Microsoft thinking?

 

Maybe their action then was accidental, maybe the sneak updates are

"Legal", but both of these are a serious blow to their claims of being

the leaders in "Trustworthy Computing" from the user's point of view.

 

You state that there is a "Workaround" for the update issue, and there

is, but it's not stated clearly and not something the average user would

think of, even a good IT Pro might miss it. So my question for MS is

"What Workaround do we have to look for next, what else are you doing

that we should know about?"

 

Failure to deal with these matter by denial helps nobody, especially

Microsoft if disillusioned users start voting with their feet.

norm wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> norm wrote:

>>

>>> ...However, you have avowed (on occasion in very strong terms) that

>>> you believe in God, so I will restate what I said above as this:

>>> And you, as an avowed believer in God, certainly do not present

>>> yourself as such in this group.

>>

>>

>> Oh really? Now you're going to sit in judgment of me? So you must be

>> without sin to be able to cast the first stone right?

>

> There is no judgement to be made. You provide ample evidence that your

> proclamation of belief and your actions do not jibe.

>

>>

>>> Regardless of being a Christian or not, your actions and statements

>>> still belie your belief.

>>

>>

>> They do? What beliefs are those, huh?

>>

>> You are still a hypocrite.

>>

>> And which of the deadly sins are you guilty of committing?

>

> Did I accuse you of committing a deadly sin? No. I called you a

> hypocrite. Bit of stretch on your part for the sake of argument.

>

>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Do you think people don't notice your behavior?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a

>>>>>> public ng, huh?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Pitiful need for attention, I take it?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Nice try but no cigar. If you want to be heard, public forums are

>>>> the place to be, right?

>>>> Or do you prefer being alone and talking to yourself?

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> The

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say

>>>>>> such a thing?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in

>>>>> the course of your "arguments"?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Please point out where I've used the term "Christian" as a point of

>>>> argument, ok?

>>>

>>>

>>> Per my corrected comment above, you might not have used the term

>>> "Christian" but you certainly have used God's name in your

>>> "arguments" and accusations of someone being a godless atheist.

>>

>>

>> Yeah and alias is proud of being an atheist, right?

>> So...?

>

> The issue is not whether alias is an atheist or not. The issue is that

> you are a hypocrite.

>

>>

>> Your belief and your

>>

>>> actions appear to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.

>>

>>

>> Which spectrum is that norm...the one you made up?

>

> The spectrum of proclaiming belief on one hand and your actions on the

> other.

>

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Or could it be that you will use any

>>>>

>>>>> "weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your

>>>>> little game to gain the attention you need?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Careful, you're about to fall on your own sword.

>>>

>>>

>>> Again, I think not.

>>>

>> Oh, I think you've already done it!

>>

>>>>

>>>> Then again, why bother to

>>>>

>>>>> ask anything of you?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> You tell me? Seeing as how you're the one doing the questioning.

>>>>

>>>> There will be nothing of substance forthcoming

>>>>

>>>>> anyway.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Ahhh...the final try at an insult! Sorry norm, but engaging you in

>>>> any substantive discussion now seems out of reason and reach.

>>>

>>>

>>> So says the master of insults. As you have so many times asked

>>> others, I in turn ask you. How can it be an insult if it is the truth?

>>

>>

>> Remember what RR said..."the truth is only a reality that can be

>> manipulated".

>> Who do you answer to norm?

>> Frank

>

> I don't answer to you. Spin it any way you want. You are no less a

> hypocrite regardless of your arguments or your new questions. You

> proclaim your belief in God and you act in direct opposition to that

> belief.

> hyp·o·crite /?h?p?kr?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled

> Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

> –noun

> 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,

> principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a

> person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

> 2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,

> esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her

> public statements.

> [Origin: 1175–1225 ME ipocrite < OF < LL hypocrita < Gk hypokrits a

> stage actor, hence one who pretends to be what he is not, equiv. to

> hypokr(nesthai) (see hypocrisy) + -tés agent suffix]

>

> Main Entry: hyp·o·crite

> Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit

> Function: noun

> Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin

> hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai

> 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

> 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or

> feelings

>

 

hehehe...I guess I pushed all of your buttons, right norm?

But guess what, you're opinion of me is obviously only important to you.

Pity that you're such a small person.

Frank

Charlie Tame wrote:

> We have a locked server at work and the terminals can't browse the

> internet normally, but if they hit windows update IE opens up and away

> they go. It was a nurse who found this :)

 

and if some don't know...

you can use IE (or any browser) as a file manager.

Thankfully with wuac enabled IE asked before going to c:/

 

Please tell me that the system mentioned has wuac enabled

and that she had to ok a warning popup...

> I think IE and standard technology being involved with updates for a

> modern OS is not a good idea...

 

There are a few problems with the Vista system inheriting

IE7 problems that need tending, hopefully folks will give

useful info/links so that they can be replicated.

 

NT Canuck

'Seek and ye shall find'

"more pompous"

Your need to insult instead of dealing with the issues reflects on your own

character and not on those you need to insult.

 

"even a good IT Pro might miss it"

Then the IT Pro clearly is not.

 

"Failure to deal with these matter by denial helps nobody"

Your selective reading is getting old.

Your inability or unwillingness to see that I have given the solution for

users is solely your problem.

You deal with it by insulting others and you call me "pompous".

 

You need to read my posts again, possibly for the first time.

Your assumptions and selectively reading do nothing to help the OP.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:%230PO7ZL%23HHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> You're getting more pompous, so what?

>

> The fact is that your attempts to play down the seriousness of the world's

> leading supplier of operating systems leaving security concerns by choice

> in 90% of the country's computers is irresponsible. Fair enough, nothing

> serious happened "This time", but only weeks ago their sneaky software

> declared a lot of their "Flagship" products illegal, causing REAL loss of

> functionality BY DESIGN. What are Microsoft thinking?

>

> Maybe their action then was accidental, maybe the sneak updates are

> "Legal", but both of these are a serious blow to their claims of being the

> leaders in "Trustworthy Computing" from the user's point of view.

>

> You state that there is a "Workaround" for the update issue, and there is,

> but it's not stated clearly and not something the average user would think

> of, even a good IT Pro might miss it. So my question for MS is "What

> Workaround do we have to look for next, what else are you doing that we

> should know about?"

>

> Failure to deal with these matter by denial helps nobody, especially

> Microsoft if disillusioned users start voting with their feet.

One more thing...

"The fact is that your attempts to play down the seriousness"

You seem to conveniently ignore the difference between what is legal and

what should an organization do with their customers interests in mind.

 

they are not the same and your need to blur the two does not help anyone.

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

 

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:%230PO7ZL%23HHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> You're getting more pompous, so what?

>

> The fact is that your attempts to play down the seriousness of the world's

> leading supplier of operating systems leaving security concerns by choice

> in 90% of the country's computers is irresponsible. Fair enough, nothing

> serious happened "This time", but only weeks ago their sneaky software

> declared a lot of their "Flagship" products illegal, causing REAL loss of

> functionality BY DESIGN. What are Microsoft thinking?

>

> Maybe their action then was accidental, maybe the sneak updates are

> "Legal", but both of these are a serious blow to their claims of being the

> leaders in "Trustworthy Computing" from the user's point of view.

>

> You state that there is a "Workaround" for the update issue, and there is,

> but it's not stated clearly and not something the average user would think

> of, even a good IT Pro might miss it. So my question for MS is "What

> Workaround do we have to look for next, what else are you doing that we

> should know about?"

>

> Failure to deal with these matter by denial helps nobody, especially

> Microsoft if disillusioned users start voting with their feet.

Frank wrote:

> norm wrote:

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> norm wrote:

>>>

>>>> ...However, you have avowed (on occasion in very strong terms) that

>>>> you believe in God, so I will restate what I said above as this:

>>>> And you, as an avowed believer in God, certainly do not present

>>>> yourself as such in this group.

>>>

>>>

>>> Oh really? Now you're going to sit in judgment of me? So you must be

>>> without sin to be able to cast the first stone right?

>>

>> There is no judgement to be made. You provide ample evidence that your

>> proclamation of belief and your actions do not jibe.

>>

>>>

>>>> Regardless of being a Christian or not, your actions and statements

>>>> still belie your belief.

>>>

>>>

>>> They do? What beliefs are those, huh?

>>>

>>> You are still a hypocrite.

>>>

>>> And which of the deadly sins are you guilty of committing?

>>

>> Did I accuse you of committing a deadly sin? No. I called you a

>> hypocrite. Bit of stretch on your part for the sake of argument.

>>

>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Do you think people don't notice your behavior?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a

>>>>>>> public ng, huh?

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Pitiful need for attention, I take it?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Nice try but no cigar. If you want to be heard, public forums are

>>>>> the place to be, right?

>>>>> Or do you prefer being alone and talking to yourself?

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> The

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say

>>>>>>> such a thing?

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in

>>>>>> the course of your "arguments"?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Please point out where I've used the term "Christian" as a point of

>>>>> argument, ok?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Per my corrected comment above, you might not have used the term

>>>> "Christian" but you certainly have used God's name in your

>>>> "arguments" and accusations of someone being a godless atheist.

>>>

>>>

>>> Yeah and alias is proud of being an atheist, right?

>>> So...?

>>

>> The issue is not whether alias is an atheist or not. The issue is that

>> you are a hypocrite.

>>

>>>

>>> Your belief and your

>>>

>>>> actions appear to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.

>>>

>>>

>>> Which spectrum is that norm...the one you made up?

>>

>> The spectrum of proclaiming belief on one hand and your actions on the

>> other.

>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Or could it be that you will use any

>>>>>

>>>>>> "weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your

>>>>>> little game to gain the attention you need?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Careful, you're about to fall on your own sword.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Again, I think not.

>>>>

>>> Oh, I think you've already done it!

>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Then again, why bother to

>>>>>

>>>>>> ask anything of you?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> You tell me? Seeing as how you're the one doing the questioning.

>>>>>

>>>>> There will be nothing of substance forthcoming

>>>>>

>>>>>> anyway.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Ahhh...the final try at an insult! Sorry norm, but engaging you in

>>>>> any substantive discussion now seems out of reason and reach.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> So says the master of insults. As you have so many times asked

>>>> others, I in turn ask you. How can it be an insult if it is the truth?

>>>

>>>

>>> Remember what RR said..."the truth is only a reality that can be

>>> manipulated".

>>> Who do you answer to norm?

>>> Frank

>>

>> I don't answer to you. Spin it any way you want. You are no less a

>> hypocrite regardless of your arguments or your new questions. You

>> proclaim your belief in God and you act in direct opposition to that

>> belief.

>> hyp·o·crite /?h?p?kr?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled

>> Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

>> –noun

>> 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious

>> beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess,

>> esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

>> 2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved

>> attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie

>> his or her public statements.

>> [Origin: 1175–1225 ME ipocrite < OF < LL hypocrita < Gk hypokrits a

>> stage actor, hence one who pretends to be what he is not, equiv. to

>> hypokr(nesthai) (see hypocrisy) + -tés agent suffix]

>>

>> Main Entry: hyp·o·crite

>> Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit

>> Function: noun

>> Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin

>> hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai

>> 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

>> 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or

>> feelings

>>

>

> hehehe...I guess I pushed all of your buttons, right norm?

hehehe....So that is your modus operandi? Geez, no one would ever guess

that you might do that. As for you pushing my buttons, think what you will.

> But guess what, you're opinion of me is obviously only important to you.

No more than your opinions are important only to you.

> Pity that you're such a small person.

You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite.

> Frank

 

 

--

norm

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> One more thing...

> "The fact is that your attempts to play down the seriousness"

> You seem to conveniently ignore the difference between what is legal and

> what should an organization do with their customers interests in mind.

>

> they are not the same and your need to blur the two does not help anyone.

 

 

If YOU had read what I wrote you would have seen that I clearly

mentioned that their action may be legal, it probably is worded in that

manner, however it remains deceptive to anyone reading the EULA without

presupposing malicious intent. Once again you remove the context to make

it look as if something different was said.

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> "more pompous"

> Your need to insult instead of dealing with the issues reflects on your

> own character and not on those you need to insult.

>

> "even a good IT Pro might miss it"

> Then the IT Pro clearly is not.

 

 

Nonsense, you are again suggesting that an IT pro has to treat MS with

distrust in order to do his job properly...

 

 

 

> "Failure to deal with these matter by denial helps nobody"

> Your selective reading is getting old.

> Your inability or unwillingness to see that I have given the solution

> for users is solely your problem.

> You deal with it by insulting others and you call me "pompous".

 

 

 

1 I was referring to MS denying that there's a serious issue here and so

what if you have given a (Workaround not a solution) to a handful of

people who post here? When it comes to criticism you claim that it only

comes from a mere handful who visit these forums but you make it sound

like you half dozen posts have reached more of the Windows User base.

 

 

 

> You need to read my posts again, possibly for the first time.

> Your assumptions and selectively reading do nothing to help the OP.

 

 

Neither does any of your pontificating, and I don't know how you face

yourself complaining about selective reading when you constantly edit

others' statements to remove the context.

NT Canuck wrote:

> Charlie Tame wrote:

>

>> We have a locked server at work and the terminals can't browse the

>> internet normally, but if they hit windows update IE opens up and away

>> they go. It was a nurse who found this :)

>

> and if some don't know...

> you can use IE (or any browser) as a file manager.

> Thankfully with wuac enabled IE asked before going to c:/

>

> Please tell me that the system mentioned has wuac enabled

> and that she had to ok a warning popup...

>

>> I think IE and standard technology being involved with updates for a

>> modern OS is not a good idea...

>

> There are a few problems with the Vista system inheriting

> IE7 problems that need tending, hopefully folks will give

> useful info/links so that they can be replicated.

>

> NT Canuck

> 'Seek and ye shall find'

>

 

 

The server is W2003 and managed from elsewhere, I only cover dire

emergencies so I don't know or influence security policy. Access is from

Winterm thin clients mostly via RDP although there are a couple of XP

PCs using it.

norm wrote:

>

> You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite.

>

>---------------------------------------------------------

 

Well norm, I don't think so.

If you calling me a hypocrite is the best you can come with, and that's

your best shot, sorry, but it is not near good enough.

And only coming up with a cut/paste dictionary definition doesn't make

me one nor does you calling me one make me one cause I'm not a hypocrite

by your's or anyone else's definition.

And just because you want it to doesn't mean it does.

Too bad!

Try harder.

Frank

 

Oh, and one other thing.

You have no idea who I am either!

You Just Violated The Microsoft Connect TOS (Terms Of Service), Just FYI.

 

P.S. You Are Not Supposed To Post Your Beta ID In The Public Newsgroups,

Just FYI.

 

"Kevin Brunt (Fat Baztard)" <Kevin.Brunt@MSproducts.com> wrote in message

news:46E9A183.14926934@NEWSGROUPS.COM...

>

> This is just the pratice run. Next time MS will also try disabling any

> systems it thinks is using pirated software!! Watch the space!!!

>

>

> Silicon neuron wrote:

>>

>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1

>>

>> By Scott Dunn

>>

>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'

>> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

>>

>> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely

>> installed,

>> and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.

>>

>> Files changed with no notice to users

>>

>> In recent days, Windows Update (WU) started altering files on users'

>> systems

>> without displaying any dialog box to request permission. The only files

>> that

>> have been reportedly altered to date are nine small executables on XP and

>> nine on Vista that are used by WU itself. Microsoft is patching these

>> files

>> silently, even if auto-updates have been disabled on a particular PC.

>>

>> It's surprising that these files can be changed without the user's

>> knowledge. The Automatic Updates dialog box in the Control Panel can be

>> set

>> to prevent updates from being installed automatically. However, with

>> Microsoft's latest stealth move, updates to the WU executables seem to be

>> installed regardless of the settings - without notifying users.

>>

>> When users launch Windows Update, Microsoft's online service can check

>> the

>> version of its executables on the PC and update them if necessary. What's

>> unusual is that people are reporting changes in these files although WU

>> wasn't authorized to install anything.

>>

>> This isn't the first time Microsoft has pushed updates out to users who

>> prefer to test and install their updates manually. Not long ago, another

>> Windows component, svchost.exe, was causing problems with Windows Update,

>> as

>> last reported on June 21 in the Windows Secrets Newsletter. In that case,

>> however, the Windows Update site notified users that updated software had

>> to

>> be installed before the patching process could proceed. This time, such a

>> notice never appears.

>>

>> For users who elect not to have updates installed automatically, the

>> issue

>> of consent is crucial. Microsoft has apparently decided, however, that it

>> doesn't need permission to patch Windows Updates files, even if you've

>> set

>> your preferences to require it.

>>

>> Microsoft provides no tech information - yet

>>

>> To make matters even stranger, a search on Microsoft's Web site reveals

>> no

>> information at all on the stealth updates. Let's say you wished to

>> voluntarily download and install the new WU executable files when you

>> were,

>> for example, reinstalling a system. You'd be hard-pressed to find the

>> updated files in order to download them. At this writing, you either get

>> a

>> stealth install or nothing.

>>

>> A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files, which

>> bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at

>> Microsoft's site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a Microsoft

>> Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states:

>>

>> "Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update

>> itself.

>> It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update

>> is

>> installed, Windows Update won't work, at least in terms of searching for

>> further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked

>> until this update is installed."

>>

>> Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft

>> Partner Support about the update and received this short reply:

>>

>> "7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific

>> issues

>> found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS [Windows

>> Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be

>> available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is

>> available."

>>

>> Unfortunately, this reply does not explain why the stealth patching began

>> with so little information provided to customers. Nor does it provide any

>> details on the "specific issues" that the update supposedly addresses.

>>

>> System logs confirm stealth installs

>>

>> In his forum post, Dean-Dean names several files that are changed on XP

>> and

>> Vista. The patching process updates several Windows\System32 executables

>> (with the extensions .exe, .dll, and .cpl) to version 7.0.6000.381,

>> according to the post.

>>

>> In Vista, the following files are updated:

>>

>> 1. wuapi.dll

>> 2. wuapp.exe

>> 3. wuauclt.exe

>> 4. wuaueng.dll

>> 5. wucltux.dll

>> 6. wudriver.dll

>> 7. wups.dll

>> 8. wups2.dll

>> 9. wuwebv.dll

>>

>> In XP, the following files are updated:

>>

>> 1. cdm.dll

>> 2. wuapi.dll

>> 3. wuauclt.exe

>> 4. wuaucpl.cpl

>> 5. wuaueng.dll

>> 6. wucltui.dll

>> 7. wups.dll

>> 8. wups2.dll

>> 9. wuweb.dll

>>

>> These files are by no means viruses, and Microsoft appears to have no

>> malicious intent in patching them. However, writing files to a user's PC

>> without notice (when auto-updating has been turned off) is behavior

>> that's

>> usually associated with hacker Web sites. The question being raised in

>> discussion forums is, "Why is Microsoft operating in this way?"

>>

>> How to check which version your PC has

>>

>> If a system has been patched in the past few months, the nine executables

>> in

>> Windows\System32 will either show an earlier version number,

>> 7.0.6000.374,

>> or the stealth patch: 7.0.6000.381. (The version numbers can be seen by

>> right-clicking a file and choosing Properties. In XP, click the Version

>> tab

>> and then select File Version. In Vista, click the Details tab.)

>>

>> In addition, PCs that received the update will have new executables in

>> subfolders named 7.0.6000.381 under the following folders:

>>

>> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups.dll

>> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups2.dll

>>

>> Users can also verify whether patching occurred by checking Windows'

>> Event

>> Log:

>>

>> Step 1. In XP, click Start, Run.

>>

>> Step 2. Type eventvwr.msc and press Enter.

>>

>> Step 3. In the tree pane on the left, select System.

>>

>> Step 4. The right pane displays events and several details about them.

>> Event

>> types such as "Installation" are labeled in the Category column. "Windows

>> Update Agent" is the event typically listed in the Source column for

>> system

>> patches.

>>

>> On systems that were checked recently by Windows Secrets readers, the

>> Event

>> Log shows two installation events on Aug. 24. The files were

>> stealth-updated

>> in the early morning hours. (The time stamp will vary, of course, on

>> machines that received the patch on other dates.)

>>

>> To investigate further, you can open the Event Log's properties for each

>> event. Normally, when a Windows update event occurs, the properties

>> dialog

>> box shows an associated KB number, enabling you to find more information

>> at

>> Microsoft's Web site. Mysteriously, no KB number is given for the WU

>> updates

>> that began in August. The description merely reads, "Installation

>> Successful: Windows successfully installed the following update:

>> Automatic

>> Updates."

>>

>> No need to roll back the updated files

>>

>> Again, it's important to note that there's nothing harmful about the

>> updated

>> files themselves. There are no reports of software conflicts and no

>> reason

>> to remove the files (which WU apparently needs in order to access the

>> latest

>> patches). The only concern is the mechanism Microsoft is using to perform

>> its patching, and how this mechanism might be used by the software giant

>> in

>> the future.

>>

>> I'd like to thank reader Angus Scott-Fleming for his help in researching

>> this topic. He recommends that advanced Windows users monitor changes to

>> their systems' Registry settings via a free program by Olivier Lombart

>> called Tiny Watcher. Scott-Fleming will receive a gift certificate for a

>> book, CD, or DVD of his choice for sending in a comment we printed.

>>

>> I'll report further on this story when I'm able to find more information

>> on

>> the policies and techniques behind Windows Update's silent patches. Send

>> me

>> your tips on this subject via the Windows Secrets contact page.

>>

>> Scott Dunn is associate editor of the Windows Secrets Newsletter. He is

>> also

>> a contributing editor of PC World Magazine, where he has written a

>> monthly

>> column since 1992, and co-author of 101 Windows Tips & Tricks (Peachpit)

>> with Jesse Berst and Charles Bermant.

>

Frank wrote:

> norm wrote:

>

>>

>> You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite.

>>

>> ---------------------------------------------------------

>

> Well norm, I don't think so.

> If you calling me a hypocrite is the best you can come with, and that's

> your best shot, sorry, but it is not near good enough.

Good enough for what? You?

> And only coming up with a cut/paste dictionary definition doesn't make

> me one nor does you calling me one make me one cause I'm not a hypocrite

> by your's or anyone else's definition.

Sure you are.

> And just because you want it to doesn't mean it does.

> Too bad!

> Try harder.

Don't need to.

> Frank

>

> Oh, and one other thing.

> You have no idea who I am either!

Sure I do. You are a hypocrite, by anyone's definition.

 

 

--

norm