On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:42:52 +0200, Erwin Moller

<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote:

>dennis@home wrote:

>>

>> "Erwin Moller"

>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

>> message news:46eeaa68$0$227$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>

>>> So lets focus on the argument, and simply not take each other word for

>>> it.

>>

>> There is no argument..

>> you have the view that because the code is public lots of people will

>> read it, understand it, and make sure its safe.

>> I say they can't/don't do that and have offered evidence that backs my

>> view.

>> Until you have some actual evidence the argument is finished.

>

>Smart move Dennis,

>

>If it gets too hot in the kitchen, get out.

 

Dennis is nothing but another wannabe that recently joined this group

and judging his increasingly shrill comments seems desperately trying

to dethrone past wannabe types as the main blowhard. Accordingly I

wish him luck, but he should be aware the competition for the being

the most obnoxious poster in this newsgroup requires considerable

effort considering there are so many attempting to archive the same

status.

Alias wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:

>

>>

>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:fco9d6$vvn$1@aioe.org...

>>

>>> Fact: the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows

>>> boxes. Live with it or wake up and go Open Source.

>>

>>

>> You can say that as often as you like.. it doesn't make it true.. it

>> just makes *you* sound crazy.

>> I don't think anyone is going to take notice of a crazy person so you

>> may as well either tell the truth or go away.

>

>

> Ad hominem attacks are probably the most amateurish was of debating. I

> stand by what I said and you can't prove otherwise. Insulting me, btw,

> it not proving otherwise.

>

Maybe not...but he nailed your stupid ass really good!

Frank

Alias wrote:

> Erwin Moller wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:fco7q6$s72$1@aioe.org...

>>>>

>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:fco3io$h71$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "Erwin Moller"

>>>>>>>>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com>

>>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:46eeaa68$0$227$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> So lets focus on the argument, and simply not take each other

>>>>>>>>>> word for it.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> There is no argument..

>>>>>>>>> you have the view that because the code is public lots of

>>>>>>>>> people will read it, understand it, and make sure its safe.

>>>>>>>>> I say they can't/don't do that and have offered evidence that

>>>>>>>>> backs my view.

>>>>>>>>> Until you have some actual evidence the argument is finished.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Just a quick scan before giving up for the night and a happened

>>>>>>>> to find this post :)

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Have to say Dennis that is something I've always said...

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Why, unless working on a section of it currently, would anyone

>>>>>>>> sit and wade through the code for (say) a Linux Kernel?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Surely you would modify the bit you were working on and compile

>>>>>>>> the whole thing again... thus recompiling something that may be

>>>>>>>> incorrect or even malicious that sneaked in before. I mean I

>>>>>>>> know this "Shouldn't" happen but that does not equate to

>>>>>>>> "Couldn't" happen, and it seems to me that risk is somewhat

>>>>>>>> dependent on such things as a strict version control system.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Considering that there are many more independent "Fingers in the

>>>>>>>> pie" than there are with (Say) Sun or Microsoft I don't think

>>>>>>>> you can make a straight comparison between open and closed code.

>>>>>>>> There's no doubting that errors still happen.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Yeah, but Windows boxes have been proven to be more virus prone

>>>>>>> and Windows boxes are the only boxes that are members of herd

>>>>>>> bots that send us all the spam. You are talking about a

>>>>>>> theoretical possibility when, in reality, Windows boxes are the

>>>>>>> ones spreading crap all over the Internet, not Linux boxes. Proof

>>>>>>> is in the pudding and all that jazz.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Your blind faith, produced by irrelevant comparisons with other

>>>>>> software, when it comes to security is worrying.

>>>>>> It indicates you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>>>>> Please attempt to improve your knowledge before commenting as it

>>>>>> makes you appear ignorant.

>>>>>> As a simple example that even you may understand.. you don't leave

>>>>>> your door open just because your neighbour leaves his windows open.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Care to address content or only emulate Frank and toss out

>>>>> unfounded insults, lies and bluster? What the HELL is a Linux box

>>>>> going to do with an .exe file, which is the chosen format for viruses?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> What have viruses got to do with security and your misunderstanding

>>>> of it?

>>>

>>>

>>> Are you saying that viruses have nothing to do with security? LOL!

>>> Good one!

>>>

>>> Fact: the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows

>>> boxes. Live with it or wake up and go Open Source.

>>>

>>

>> Hi Alias,

>>

>> Give up on Dennis. -)

>> I just did.

>> I thought at first he had more intelectual baggage than (say) Frank

>> but he prefers kindergarten style when his argument goes nowhere.

>>

>> Regards,

>> Erwin

>

>

> Both of them, erroneously, think that hurling lies, insults and bluster

> is a proper what of debating.

>

 

Learn to read a header yet mr computer genius...hahaha...lol?

Frank

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:fco9d6$vvn$1@aioe.org...

>>>

>>>> Fact: the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows

>>>> boxes. Live with it or wake up and go Open Source.

>>>

>>>

>>> You can say that as often as you like.. it doesn't make it true.. it

>>> just makes *you* sound crazy.

>>> I don't think anyone is going to take notice of a crazy person so you

>>> may as well either tell the truth or go away.

>>

>>

>> Ad hominem attacks are probably the most amateurish was of debating. I

>> stand by what I said and you can't prove otherwise. Insulting me, btw,

>> it not proving otherwise.

>>

> Maybe not...but he nailed your stupid ass really good!

> Frank

 

Considering all you have to offer is lies, insults and bluster it's a no

brainer that you would enjoy seeing someone else imitating you with

lies, insults and bluster.

 

Soooo, you and he are the ones nailed, not me.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Erwin Moller wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:fco7q6$s72$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>

>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:fco3io$h71$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> "Erwin Moller"

>>>>>>>>>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com>

>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:46eeaa68$0$227$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> So lets focus on the argument, and simply not take each other

>>>>>>>>>>> word for it.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> There is no argument..

>>>>>>>>>> you have the view that because the code is public lots of

>>>>>>>>>> people will read it, understand it, and make sure its safe.

>>>>>>>>>> I say they can't/don't do that and have offered evidence that

>>>>>>>>>> backs my view.

>>>>>>>>>> Until you have some actual evidence the argument is finished.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Just a quick scan before giving up for the night and a happened

>>>>>>>>> to find this post :)

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Have to say Dennis that is something I've always said...

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Why, unless working on a section of it currently, would anyone

>>>>>>>>> sit and wade through the code for (say) a Linux Kernel?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Surely you would modify the bit you were working on and compile

>>>>>>>>> the whole thing again... thus recompiling something that may be

>>>>>>>>> incorrect or even malicious that sneaked in before. I mean I

>>>>>>>>> know this "Shouldn't" happen but that does not equate to

>>>>>>>>> "Couldn't" happen, and it seems to me that risk is somewhat

>>>>>>>>> dependent on such things as a strict version control system.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Considering that there are many more independent "Fingers in

>>>>>>>>> the pie" than there are with (Say) Sun or Microsoft I don't

>>>>>>>>> think you can make a straight comparison between open and

>>>>>>>>> closed code. There's no doubting that errors still happen.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Yeah, but Windows boxes have been proven to be more virus prone

>>>>>>>> and Windows boxes are the only boxes that are members of herd

>>>>>>>> bots that send us all the spam. You are talking about a

>>>>>>>> theoretical possibility when, in reality, Windows boxes are the

>>>>>>>> ones spreading crap all over the Internet, not Linux boxes.

>>>>>>>> Proof is in the pudding and all that jazz.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Your blind faith, produced by irrelevant comparisons with other

>>>>>>> software, when it comes to security is worrying.

>>>>>>> It indicates you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>>>>>> Please attempt to improve your knowledge before commenting as it

>>>>>>> makes you appear ignorant.

>>>>>>> As a simple example that even you may understand.. you don't

>>>>>>> leave your door open just because your neighbour leaves his

>>>>>>> windows open.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Care to address content or only emulate Frank and toss out

>>>>>> unfounded insults, lies and bluster? What the HELL is a Linux box

>>>>>> going to do with an .exe file, which is the chosen format for

>>>>>> viruses?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> What have viruses got to do with security and your misunderstanding

>>>>> of it?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Are you saying that viruses have nothing to do with security? LOL!

>>>> Good one!

>>>>

>>>> Fact: the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows

>>>> boxes. Live with it or wake up and go Open Source.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Hi Alias,

>>>

>>> Give up on Dennis. -)

>>> I just did.

>>> I thought at first he had more intelectual baggage than (say) Frank

>>> but he prefers kindergarten style when his argument goes nowhere.

>>>

>>> Regards,

>>> Erwin

>>

>>

>> Both of them, erroneously, think that hurling lies, insults and

>> bluster is a proper what of debating.

>>

>

> Learn to read a header yet mr computer genius...hahaha...lol?

> Frank

 

Yeah, you're using Vista. You have my condolences. No one here on this

group is a "mr [sic] computer genius".

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Alias wrote:

> Considering all you have to offer is lies, insults and bluster it's a no

> brainer that you would enjoy seeing someone else imitating you with

> lies, insults and bluster.

>

> Soooo, you and he are the ones nailed, not me.

>

 

Yawn...try a different line as your "lies, insults and bluster" bs is

getting old and uninteresting.

Frank

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Erwin Moller wrote:

>>>

>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:fco7q6$s72$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:fco3io$h71$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "Erwin Moller"

>>>>>>>>>>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com>

>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:46eeaa68$0$227$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> So lets focus on the argument, and simply not take each

>>>>>>>>>>>> other word for it.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> There is no argument..

>>>>>>>>>>> you have the view that because the code is public lots of

>>>>>>>>>>> people will read it, understand it, and make sure its safe.

>>>>>>>>>>> I say they can't/don't do that and have offered evidence that

>>>>>>>>>>> backs my view.

>>>>>>>>>>> Until you have some actual evidence the argument is finished.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Just a quick scan before giving up for the night and a

>>>>>>>>>> happened to find this post :)

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Have to say Dennis that is something I've always said...

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Why, unless working on a section of it currently, would anyone

>>>>>>>>>> sit and wade through the code for (say) a Linux Kernel?

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Surely you would modify the bit you were working on and

>>>>>>>>>> compile the whole thing again... thus recompiling something

>>>>>>>>>> that may be incorrect or even malicious that sneaked in

>>>>>>>>>> before. I mean I know this "Shouldn't" happen but that does

>>>>>>>>>> not equate to "Couldn't" happen, and it seems to me that risk

>>>>>>>>>> is somewhat dependent on such things as a strict version

>>>>>>>>>> control system.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Considering that there are many more independent "Fingers in

>>>>>>>>>> the pie" than there are with (Say) Sun or Microsoft I don't

>>>>>>>>>> think you can make a straight comparison between open and

>>>>>>>>>> closed code. There's no doubting that errors still happen.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but Windows boxes have been proven to be more virus prone

>>>>>>>>> and Windows boxes are the only boxes that are members of herd

>>>>>>>>> bots that send us all the spam. You are talking about a

>>>>>>>>> theoretical possibility when, in reality, Windows boxes are the

>>>>>>>>> ones spreading crap all over the Internet, not Linux boxes.

>>>>>>>>> Proof is in the pudding and all that jazz.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Your blind faith, produced by irrelevant comparisons with other

>>>>>>>> software, when it comes to security is worrying.

>>>>>>>> It indicates you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>>>>>>> Please attempt to improve your knowledge before commenting as it

>>>>>>>> makes you appear ignorant.

>>>>>>>> As a simple example that even you may understand.. you don't

>>>>>>>> leave your door open just because your neighbour leaves his

>>>>>>>> windows open.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Care to address content or only emulate Frank and toss out

>>>>>>> unfounded insults, lies and bluster? What the HELL is a Linux box

>>>>>>> going to do with an .exe file, which is the chosen format for

>>>>>>> viruses?

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> What have viruses got to do with security and your

>>>>>> misunderstanding of it?

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Are you saying that viruses have nothing to do with security? LOL!

>>>>> Good one!

>>>>>

>>>>> Fact: the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows

>>>>> boxes. Live with it or wake up and go Open Source.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Hi Alias,

>>>>

>>>> Give up on Dennis. -)

>>>> I just did.

>>>> I thought at first he had more intelectual baggage than (say) Frank

>>>> but he prefers kindergarten style when his argument goes nowhere.

>>>>

>>>> Regards,

>>>> Erwin

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> Both of them, erroneously, think that hurling lies, insults and

>>> bluster is a proper what of debating.

>>>

>>

>> Learn to read a header yet mr computer genius...hahaha...lol?

>> Frank

>

>

> Yeah, you're using Vista. You have my condolences. No one here on this

> group is a "mr [sic] computer genius".

>

 

Then stop acting like one!

Frank

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Considering all you have to offer is lies, insults and bluster it's a

>> no brainer that you would enjoy seeing someone else imitating you with

>> lies, insults and bluster.

>>

>> Soooo, you and he are the ones nailed, not me.

>>

>

> Yawn...try a different line as your "lies, insults and bluster" bs is

> getting old and uninteresting.

> Frank

 

No, your lies, insults and bluster got old a long time ago. Stop doing

it if you don't want it pointed out.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Frank wrote:

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>> Erwin Moller wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Alias wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:fco7q6$s72$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:fco3io$h71$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> "Erwin Moller"

>>>>>>>>>>>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com>

>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:46eeaa68$0$227$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> So lets focus on the argument, and simply not take each

>>>>>>>>>>>>> other word for it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no argument..

>>>>>>>>>>>> you have the view that because the code is public lots of

>>>>>>>>>>>> people will read it, understand it, and make sure its safe.

>>>>>>>>>>>> I say they can't/don't do that and have offered evidence

>>>>>>>>>>>> that backs my view.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you have some actual evidence the argument is finished.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Just a quick scan before giving up for the night and a

>>>>>>>>>>> happened to find this post :)

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Have to say Dennis that is something I've always said...

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Why, unless working on a section of it currently, would

>>>>>>>>>>> anyone sit and wade through the code for (say) a Linux Kernel?

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Surely you would modify the bit you were working on and

>>>>>>>>>>> compile the whole thing again... thus recompiling something

>>>>>>>>>>> that may be incorrect or even malicious that sneaked in

>>>>>>>>>>> before. I mean I know this "Shouldn't" happen but that does

>>>>>>>>>>> not equate to "Couldn't" happen, and it seems to me that risk

>>>>>>>>>>> is somewhat dependent on such things as a strict version

>>>>>>>>>>> control system.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Considering that there are many more independent "Fingers in

>>>>>>>>>>> the pie" than there are with (Say) Sun or Microsoft I don't

>>>>>>>>>>> think you can make a straight comparison between open and

>>>>>>>>>>> closed code. There's no doubting that errors still happen.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but Windows boxes have been proven to be more virus

>>>>>>>>>> prone and Windows boxes are the only boxes that are members of

>>>>>>>>>> herd bots that send us all the spam. You are talking about a

>>>>>>>>>> theoretical possibility when, in reality, Windows boxes are

>>>>>>>>>> the ones spreading crap all over the Internet, not Linux

>>>>>>>>>> boxes. Proof is in the pudding and all that jazz.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Your blind faith, produced by irrelevant comparisons with other

>>>>>>>>> software, when it comes to security is worrying.

>>>>>>>>> It indicates you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>>>>>>>> Please attempt to improve your knowledge before commenting as

>>>>>>>>> it makes you appear ignorant.

>>>>>>>>> As a simple example that even you may understand.. you don't

>>>>>>>>> leave your door open just because your neighbour leaves his

>>>>>>>>> windows open.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Care to address content or only emulate Frank and toss out

>>>>>>>> unfounded insults, lies and bluster? What the HELL is a Linux

>>>>>>>> box going to do with an .exe file, which is the chosen format

>>>>>>>> for viruses?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> What have viruses got to do with security and your

>>>>>>> misunderstanding of it?

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Are you saying that viruses have nothing to do with security? LOL!

>>>>>> Good one!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Fact: the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows

>>>>>> boxes. Live with it or wake up and go Open Source.

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Hi Alias,

>>>>>

>>>>> Give up on Dennis. -)

>>>>> I just did.

>>>>> I thought at first he had more intelectual baggage than (say) Frank

>>>>> but he prefers kindergarten style when his argument goes nowhere.

>>>>>

>>>>> Regards,

>>>>> Erwin

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Both of them, erroneously, think that hurling lies, insults and

>>>> bluster is a proper what of debating.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Learn to read a header yet mr computer genius...hahaha...lol?

>>> Frank

>>

>>

>> Yeah, you're using Vista. You have my condolences. No one here on this

>> group is a "mr [sic] computer genius".

>>

>

> Then stop acting like one!

> Frank

 

I'm not. Unlike you, I will admit when I'm wrong.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:57:26 -0700, Frank <fb@nosspan.clim> wrote:

>Alias wrote:

>

>> Considering all you have to offer is lies, insults and bluster it's a no

>> brainer that you would enjoy seeing someone else imitating you with

>> lies, insults and bluster.

>>

>> Soooo, you and he are the ones nailed, not me.

>>

>

>Yawn...try a different line as your "lies, insults and bluster" bs is

>getting old and uninteresting.

>Frank

 

LOL! Talk about your lies getting old:

 

1. Lying I can't get my system to work.

2. Calling me a drunk.

3. Denying Alias always makes you dance in circles.

 

But hey, don't worry Frank, I support you keeping your hallucinations.

That is after all the only thing your have left to cling to.

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:57:26 -0700, Frank <fb@nosspan.clim> wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Considering all you have to offer is lies, insults and bluster it's a no

>>> brainer that you would enjoy seeing someone else imitating you with

>>> lies, insults and bluster.

>>>

>>> Soooo, you and he are the ones nailed, not me.

>>>

>> Yawn...try a different line as your "lies, insults and bluster" bs is

>> getting old and uninteresting.

>> Frank

>

> LOL! Talk about your lies getting old:

>

> 1. Lying I can't get my system to work.

> 2. Calling me a drunk.

> 3. Denying Alias always makes you dance in circles.

>

> But hey, don't worry Frank, I support you keeping your hallucinations.

> That is after all the only thing your have left to cling to.

>

 

Frank fires up his branded Redmond controlled Vista computer and reads

the above. Then he posts the words "liar", "drunk", "insane", "idiot",

"fool", "loser" in one order or another and says to himself, "That'll

show 'em", belches, snorts and then lets out a loud fart and says to

himself, "I sure showed those losers and they had it coming" and then he

takes another hit of beer, belches again, and continues to post the

above words over and over again all the time thinking he's the coolest

thing that ever hit Usenet.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

news:fcog3u$i7c$2@aioe.org...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:fco9d6$vvn$1@aioe.org...

>>

>>> Fact: the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows

>>> boxes. Live with it or wake up and go Open Source.

>>

>> You can say that as often as you like.. it doesn't make it true.. it just

>> makes *you* sound crazy.

>> I don't think anyone is going to take notice of a crazy person so you may

>> as well either tell the truth or go away.

>

> Ad hominem attacks are probably the most amateurish was of debating. I

> stand by what I said and you can't prove otherwise. Insulting me, btw, it

> not proving otherwise.

 

That is not an insult.. it is a statement of fact.

It is you that results to insults when you have lost the debate as it is you

that uses the other crude debating tactics in a vain attempt to conceal your

blatant ignorance.

"Mark Bourne" <Mark@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:OqXpMLf%23HHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>> "Erwin Moller"

>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

>> message news:46e994e5$0$236$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>

>>> With Ubuntu you can ALWAYS look at the sourcecode, written in clear C

>>> most of the time.

>>

>> You can look at the source code but unless you compile it and build your

>> own Ubuntu you don't know that that source is the code you have.

>>

>

> But even then, how do you know you can trust that the compiler doesn't

> inject extra code? Unless you've inspected (and fully understood) the

> compiler's source and compiled it yourself, but what do you use to do

> that...?

>

> I'm not against open source - the only paid-for software I use is Windows,

> plus a few utilities which come with hardware (and even then, the software

> is often free to download from the manufacturer's web site, just useless

> if you don't have their hardware). But it's an interesting question from

> an article I saw a few years ago...

>

> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/19

> <quote>

> All the benefits of source code peer review are irrelevant if you can not

> be certain that a given binary application is the result of the reviewed

> source code.

>

> Ken Thompson made this very clear during his 1983 Turing Award lecture to

> the ACM, in which he revealed a shocking, and subtle, software subversion

> technique that's still illustrative seventeen years later.

>

> Thompson modified the UNIX C compiler to recognize when the login program

> was being compiled, and to insert a back door in the resulting binary code

> such that it would allow him to login as any user using a "magic"

> password.

>

> Anyone reviewing the compiler source code could have found the back door,

> except that Thompson then modified the compiler so that whenever it

> compiled itself, it would insert both the code that inserts the login back

> door, as well as code that modifies the compiler. With this new binary he

> removed the modifications he had made and recompiled again.

>

> He now had a trojaned compiler and clean source code. Anyone using his

> compiler to compile either the login program , or the compiler, would

> propagate his back doors.

>

> The reason his attack worked is because the compiler has a bootstrapping

> problem. You need a compiler to compile the compiler. You must obtain a

> binary copy of the compiler before you can use it to translate the

> compiler source code into a binary. There was no guarantee that the binary

> compiler you were using was really related to the source code of the same.

> </quote>

 

You shouldn't introduce stuff like that.. alias will now accuse you of lies

and bluster as well as poor debating techniques.

I have seen that before but I thought it would be well beyond alias'

understanding and I didn't want to have to explain it.

The simple fact that they can't find the bugs by reading the source should

be enough evidence for a normal person to understand that they wont find

anything else either. You don't attempt to hide bugs like you would

malicious code.

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:fcog3u$i7c$2@aioe.org...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:fco9d6$vvn$1@aioe.org...

>>>

>>>> Fact: the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows

>>>> boxes. Live with it or wake up and go Open Source.

>>>

>>> You can say that as often as you like.. it doesn't make it true.. it

>>> just makes *you* sound crazy.

>>> I don't think anyone is going to take notice of a crazy person so you

>>> may as well either tell the truth or go away.

>>

>> Ad hominem attacks are probably the most amateurish was of debating. I

>> stand by what I said and you can't prove otherwise. Insulting me, btw,

>> it not proving otherwise.

>

> That is not an insult.. it is a statement of fact.

 

Calling me crazy isn't an insult? What world do you live in?

> It is you that results to insults when you have lost the debate as it is

> you that uses the other crude debating tactics in a vain attempt to

> conceal your blatant ignorance.

 

Fact:the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows boxes.

Live with it or wake up and go Open Source. Calling me crazy or saying I

have crude debating tactics doesn't address this fact. It's an ad

hominem attack, a very amateurish debating technique.

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:28:36 +0100, "dennis@home"

<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>

>"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>news:fcog3u$i7c$2@aioe.org...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:fco9d6$vvn$1@aioe.org...

>>>

>>>> Fact: the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows

>>>> boxes. Live with it or wake up and go Open Source.

>>>

>>> You can say that as often as you like.. it doesn't make it true.. it just

>>> makes *you* sound crazy.

>>> I don't think anyone is going to take notice of a crazy person so you may

>>> as well either tell the truth or go away.

>>

>> Ad hominem attacks are probably the most amateurish was of debating. I

>> stand by what I said and you can't prove otherwise. Insulting me, btw, it

>> not proving otherwise.

>

>That is not an insult.. it is a statement of fact.

 

Oh, you like facts. Here's one: You're just another pompous windbag.

>It is you that results to insults when you have lost the debate as it is you

>that uses the other crude debating tactics in a vain attempt to conceal your

>blatant ignorance.

 

Like you do? Funny, where I come from calling someone 'crazy' isn't

meant as a complement.

Alias wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:

>

>>

>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:fcog3u$i7c$2@aioe.org...

>>

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:fco9d6$vvn$1@aioe.org...

>>>>

>>>>> Fact: the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows

>>>>> boxes. Live with it or wake up and go Open Source.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> You can say that as often as you like.. it doesn't make it true.. it

>>>> just makes *you* sound crazy.

>>>> I don't think anyone is going to take notice of a crazy person so

>>>> you may as well either tell the truth or go away.

>>>

>>>

>>> Ad hominem attacks are probably the most amateurish was of debating.

>>> I stand by what I said and you can't prove otherwise. Insulting me,

>>> btw, it not proving otherwise.

>>

>>

>> That is not an insult.. it is a statement of fact.

>

>

> Calling me crazy isn't an insult? What world do you live in?

>

>> It is you that results to insults when you have lost the debate as it

>> is you that uses the other crude debating tactics in a vain attempt to

>> conceal your blatant ignorance.

>

>

> Fact:the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows boxes.

 

False!

> Live with it or wake up and go Open Source. Calling me crazy or saying I

> have crude debating tactics doesn't address this fact. It's an ad

> hominem attack, a very amateurish debating technique.

 

You're ridiculous! Your main "technique" (if you can call it a

"technique") of debating is ad hominem insults and lying!

Live with it!

Frank

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:fcog3u$i7c$2@aioe.org...

>>>

>>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:fco9d6$vvn$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>

>>>>>> Fact: the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows

>>>>>> boxes. Live with it or wake up and go Open Source.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> You can say that as often as you like.. it doesn't make it true..

>>>>> it just makes *you* sound crazy.

>>>>> I don't think anyone is going to take notice of a crazy person so

>>>>> you may as well either tell the truth or go away.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Ad hominem attacks are probably the most amateurish was of debating.

>>>> I stand by what I said and you can't prove otherwise. Insulting me,

>>>> btw, it not proving otherwise.

>>>

>>>

>>> That is not an insult.. it is a statement of fact.

>>

>>

>> Calling me crazy isn't an insult? What world do you live in?

>>

>>> It is you that results to insults when you have lost the debate as it

>>> is you that uses the other crude debating tactics in a vain attempt

>>> to conceal your blatant ignorance.

>>

>>

>> Fact:the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows boxes.

>

> False!

 

True!

>

>> Live with it or wake up and go Open Source. Calling me crazy or saying

>> I have crude debating tactics doesn't address this fact. It's an ad

>> hominem attack, a very amateurish debating technique.

>

> You're ridiculous! Your main "technique" (if you can call it a

> "technique") of debating is ad hominem insults and lying!

> Live with it!

> Frank

 

False!

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:23:12 -0700, Frank <fb@nosspan.clim> wrote:

>Alias wrote:

>> Live with it or wake up and go Open Source. Calling me crazy or saying I

>> have crude debating tactics doesn't address this fact. It's an ad

>> hominem attack, a very amateurish debating technique.

>

>You're ridiculous! Your main "technique" (if you can call it a

>"technique") of debating is ad hominem insults and lying!

>Live with it!

>Frank

 

And you got to ask why I call you a psychopath? You flip ever stupid

comment YOU make and try to pretend the other guy said it. If that

isn't a sure sign of mental illness nothing is.

Re: Your Problem

 

You are just one Nasty MOFO. You are a disgrace to the programming

community. I will vote to have you banned from any .NET meetings with

Microsoft. You belong in DLL HELL.

 

Just FYI.

 

 

"Erwin Moller"

<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

message news:46ee49b5$0$245$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> Ezmerelda LaDouche wrote:

>> "Erwin Moller"

>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

>> message news:46ea4642$0$226$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>> Mrs. Alias wrote:

>>>> The Erwin Moller Syndrome is a term used when a person has certain

>>>> limitations in mental functioning and in skills such as communicating,

>>>> taking care of him or herself, and social skills. These limitations

>>>> will

>>>> cause a poster to learn and develop more slowly than a typical poster.

>>>> People with Erwin Moller Syndrome may take longer to learn

>>>> to speak, walk, and take care of their personal needs such as dressing

>>>> or

>>>> eating. They are likely to have trouble learning in school, and posting

>>>> to

>>>> Microsoft newsgroups. They will learn, but it will take them longer.

>>>> There

>>>> may be some things they cannot learn. They keep trying.

>>>>

>>>> Just FYI.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Again the same posting?

>>>

>>> Are you being paid per word by M$?

>>

>> Just FYI, the "team" has given me permission to intercept your postings.

>> Just FYI.

>>

>

> What team?

> What is there to intercept?

> I am posting to a puclic group.

> Your team, whatever it is, must be state-of-the-art. Intercepting a public

> usenet posting. Neat trick!

>

> And what is with that 'just FYI' after everything you write?

> Something the docter ordered?

>

> I lost your 'line of thought' completely by now (if such a thing exists).

> Sorry.

>

> Erwin Moller

"Erwin Moller"

<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

message news:46ea87ee$0$230$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>> "Erwin Moller"

>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in

>> message news:46ea3dfb$0$233$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

>>

>>> Yes, you would know quickly enough.

>>> Many good people around that actually read the code, and ring alarmbells

>>> is stealthy things are happening in Ubuntu (or every GNU/Linux distro

>>> for that matter).

>>>

>>> This is a HUGE difference.

>>

>> The past says that is just not true.

>

> ???

>

>> If it were true there would be no bugs, and they have existed and still

>> exist in open source code.

>

> How do you conclude that there are NO bugs if a few people look at the

> open source code?

> I am not claiming GNU/Linux contains no bugs. Of course it does!

>

> I am only saying that the nature of the process (of open sourcecode )

> makes it almost impossible to put in stealthy/spylike stuff.

> Sooner or later somebody will discover this.

> In many cases: sooner.

>

>

>> If all those people can't spot the bugs why would you expect them to spot

>> any other code?

>> What you say is a nice idea but just doesn't work.

>

> Just doesn't work?

> GNU/Linux doesn't work?

> well.....

> I don't see how you come to this conclusion.

>

> A few of the finest peices of software were developed in this way.

> To name a few: Apache, linux-kernels, Gimp.

>

> Microsoft, of course, has many good programmers on their payroll, but they

> are only checked/controlled by other Microsoft programmers.

> With Free Software, everybody in the world who cares checks the

> sourcecode. You cannot compete against that when it comes to quality.

 

You wouldn't know quality if it bit you on the A$$. Just FYI

>

> Regards,

> Erwin Moller

Lies

 

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

news:fco5rk$mm9$1@aioe.org...

> NT Canuck wrote:

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Yeah, but Windows boxes have been proven to be more virus prone and

>>> Windows boxes are the only boxes that are members of herd bots that send

>>> us all the spam. You are talking about a theoretical possibility when,

>>> in reality, Windows boxes are the ones spreading crap all over the

>>> Internet, not Linux boxes. Proof is in the pudding and all that jazz.

>>

>> Someone once told me Windows Users weren't very smart,

>> certainly not smart enough to write a virus.

>

> So?

>

>>

>> Windows Servers that suffer as Spamming Hosts were

>> obviously taken over by people smarter than the

>> Windows Server SysAdmin...looking around...hmm...

>> what kind of group does that leave?

>

> So?

>

>>

>> The reality of the situation is that both operating systems

>> are prone to attacks and exploits constantly...

>

> False.

>

>>

>> People are most often drawn to Windows Systems because

>> it's easy enough to use and learn for the entire family.

>

> Ubuntu is much easier to run than Windows will ever be.

 

Lie! Lie! Lie Windows is much easier than Ubuntu - Every where Every time.

Stop spreading lies.

 

>

>>

>> NT Canuck

>> 'Seek and ye shall find'

>

> I guess you're still seeking.

>

>

>

> --

> Alias

> To email me, remove shoes

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:23:12 -0700, Frank <fb@nosspan.clim> wrote:

>

>

>>Alias wrote:

>

>

>>>Live with it or wake up and go Open Source. Calling me crazy or saying I

>>>have crude debating tactics doesn't address this fact. It's an ad

>>>hominem attack, a very amateurish debating technique.

>>

>>You're ridiculous! Your main "technique" (if you can call it a

>>"technique") of debating is ad hominem insults and lying!

>>Live with it!

>>Frank

>

>

> And you got to ask why I call you a psychopath? You flip ever stupid

> comment YOU make and try to pretend the other guy said it. If that

> isn't a sure sign of mental illness nothing is.

>

 

Well georgie-boy...you are the incarnate of mental illness.

Get help!

Frank

Re: Lies

 

Mama Putzke wrote:

> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:fco5rk$mm9$1@aioe.org...

>> NT Canuck wrote:

>>> Alias wrote:

>>>

>>>> Yeah, but Windows boxes have been proven to be more virus prone and

>>>> Windows boxes are the only boxes that are members of herd bots that send

>>>> us all the spam. You are talking about a theoretical possibility when,

>>>> in reality, Windows boxes are the ones spreading crap all over the

>>>> Internet, not Linux boxes. Proof is in the pudding and all that jazz.

>>> Someone once told me Windows Users weren't very smart,

>>> certainly not smart enough to write a virus.

>> So?

>>

>>> Windows Servers that suffer as Spamming Hosts were

>>> obviously taken over by people smarter than the

>>> Windows Server SysAdmin...looking around...hmm...

>>> what kind of group does that leave?

>> So?

>>

>>> The reality of the situation is that both operating systems

>>> are prone to attacks and exploits constantly...

>> False.

>>

>>> People are most often drawn to Windows Systems because

>>> it's easy enough to use and learn for the entire family.

>> Ubuntu is much easier to run than Windows will ever be.

>

> Lie! Lie! Lie Windows is much easier than Ubuntu - Every where Every time.

> Stop spreading lies.

>

>

 

You wish. Ubuntu is MUCH easier than Windows. Course, how would you

know, being as you've never installed Ubuntu.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Frank wrote:

> Adam Albright wrote:

>

>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:23:12 -0700, Frank <fb@nosspan.clim> wrote:

>>

>>

>>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>

>>>> Live with it or wake up and go Open Source. Calling me crazy or

>>>> saying I have crude debating tactics doesn't address this fact. It's

>>>> an ad hominem attack, a very amateurish debating technique.

>>>

>>> You're ridiculous! Your main "technique" (if you can call it a

>>> "technique") of debating is ad hominem insults and lying!

>>> Live with it!

>>> Frank

>>

>>

>> And you got to ask why I call you a psychopath? You flip ever stupid

>> comment YOU make and try to pretend the other guy said it. If that

>> isn't a sure sign of mental illness nothing is.

>

> Well georgie-boy...you are the incarnate of mental illness.

> Get help!

> Frank

 

So what does Frank do? Exactly what Adam said he would.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

news:fcpm1d$18c$1@aioe.org...

> dennis@home wrote:

>>

>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:fcog3u$i7c$2@aioe.org...

>>> dennis@home wrote:

>>>>

>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:fco9d6$vvn$1@aioe.org...

>>>>

>>>>> Fact: the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows

>>>>> boxes. Live with it or wake up and go Open Source.

>>>>

>>>> You can say that as often as you like.. it doesn't make it true.. it

>>>> just makes *you* sound crazy.

>>>> I don't think anyone is going to take notice of a crazy person so you

>>>> may as well either tell the truth or go away.

>>>

>>> Ad hominem attacks are probably the most amateurish was of debating. I

>>> stand by what I said and you can't prove otherwise. Insulting me, btw,

>>> it not proving otherwise.

>>

>> That is not an insult.. it is a statement of fact.

>

> Calling me crazy isn't an insult?

 

I didn't call you crazy.. you just don't/can't read.

> What world do you live in?

 

Not the same one as you by the stuff you claim to believe to be true.

 

>> It is you that results to insults when you have lost the debate as it is

>> you that uses the other crude debating tactics in a vain attempt to

>> conceal your blatant ignorance.

>

> Fact:the only computers that are members of herd bots are Windows boxes.

> Live with it or wake up and go Open Source. Calling me crazy or saying I

> have crude debating tactics doesn't address this fact. It's an ad hominem

> attack, a very amateurish debating technique.

 

Fact: You still don't understand even the basics of computing but are

prepared to claim to be an expert and advise others.. badly.

No amount of claiming others are insulting you when they aren't or lying

when they aren't is going to change the fact that you are ignorant when it

comes to computers. Listening and learning is the only way you will improve

and you don't appear to be capable of that.