>

> What I was disputing is your argument that because there are more Windows

> boxes, there are more Windows viruses and malware than there are for

> Linux. I say it's the difference in the architecture of each, not the

> quantity of boxes out there. Get it now?

>

> Alias

 

Let's say for example I am someone wanting to write a virus to infect as

many computers as possible. I'm going to target windows computers because

there's FAR more of them than there are linux boxes... Now do you get it...

 

Jeff

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

news:u2lPswCwHHA.4736@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Jeff wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> If it's not in the repository, no need to download or install it. If you

>>> stupidly go out of your way to put crap on a Linux machine, of course,

>>> it's possible!

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> Which would represent the majority of users out there...

>>

>> Jeff

>

> Did you learn this supercilious attitude at Redmond? Users are becoming

> more computer savvy. It's not 1998 anymore.

>

> Alias

 

The computer has grown to the point it is no longer a specialty item but is

now considered a commodity. Meaning that the majority of users are not the

tech savvy people that was out there when the pc first started finding its

way into the home. There is a huge percentage of the population that surf's

the web a random finding programs online that they don't know who they are

really downloading it from, they install it and start having problems.

 

If everyone is growing so savvy as you think explain why the geek squad at

best buy is doing so well....

 

Jeff

Jeff wrote:

>

>>

>> What I was disputing is your argument that because there are more

>> Windows boxes, there are more Windows viruses and malware than there

>> are for Linux. I say it's the difference in the architecture of each,

>> not the quantity of boxes out there. Get it now?

>>

>> Alias

>

> Let's say for example I am someone wanting to write a virus to infect as

> many computers as possible. I'm going to target windows computers

> because there's FAR more of them than there are linux boxes... Now do

> you get it...

>

> Jeff

 

Besides the point.

 

Alias

Alias wrote:

> Jeff wrote:

>

>>

>>>

>>> What I was disputing is your argument that because there are more

>>> Windows boxes, there are more Windows viruses and malware than there

>>> are for Linux. I say it's the difference in the architecture of each,

>>> not the quantity of boxes out there. Get it now?

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>> Let's say for example I am someone wanting to write a virus to infect

>> as many computers as possible. I'm going to target windows computers

>> because there's FAR more of them than there are linux boxes... Now do

>> you get it...

>>

>> Jeff

>

>

> Besides the point.

>

> Alias

 

No, that is THE POINT!

frank

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 04:20:38 +0200, Alias

<aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote:

>Jeff wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> What I was disputing is your argument that because there are more

>>> Windows boxes, there are more Windows viruses and malware than there

>>> are for Linux. I say it's the difference in the architecture of each,

>>> not the quantity of boxes out there. Get it now?

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> Let's say for example I am someone wanting to write a virus to infect as

>> many computers as possible. I'm going to target windows computers

>> because there's FAR more of them than there are linux boxes... Now do

>> you get it...

>>

>> Jeff

>

>Besides the point.

 

Actually that IS the point, but you're way too pigheaded to admit it.

 

Windows is targeted because by far it is the most used operating

system. If some nut case wants to waste his time to write a virus in

only makes sense to write one that will infect the most machines.

Those would be Windows boxes.

 

Sure, Windows has more holes in it then a pound of thinly sliced Swiss

cheese and perhaps because of it makes it somewhat easier to attack,

but if Macs had the lion's share of the market or Linux did then they

would be attacked the most simply because of their popularity. NO

computer is immune to attack. Pretending otherwise is silly.

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:48:24 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>Alias wrote:

>

>> Jeff wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>>

>>>> What I was disputing is your argument that because there are more

>>>> Windows boxes, there are more Windows viruses and malware than there

>>>> are for Linux. I say it's the difference in the architecture of each,

>>>> not the quantity of boxes out there. Get it now?

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>>

>>> Let's say for example I am someone wanting to write a virus to infect

>>> as many computers as possible. I'm going to target windows computers

>>> because there's FAR more of them than there are linux boxes... Now do

>>> you get it...

>>>

>>> Jeff

>>

>>

>> Besides the point.

>>

>> Alias

>

>No, that is THE POINT!

>frank

 

 

Hey Frank, you just agreed with me!

 

ROTFLMAO!

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:48:24 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>

>

>>Alias wrote:

>>

>>

>>>Jeff wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>>>What I was disputing is your argument that because there are more

>>>>>Windows boxes, there are more Windows viruses and malware than there

>>>>>are for Linux. I say it's the difference in the architecture of each,

>>>>>not the quantity of boxes out there. Get it now?

>>>>>

>>>>>Alias

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>Let's say for example I am someone wanting to write a virus to infect

>>>>as many computers as possible. I'm going to target windows computers

>>>>because there's FAR more of them than there are linux boxes... Now do

>>>>you get it...

>>>>

>>>>Jeff

>>>

>>>

>>>Besides the point.

>>>

>>>Alias

>>

>>No, that is THE POINT!

>>frank

>

>

>

> Hey Frank, you just agreed with me!

>

> ROTFLMAO!

>

 

 

Oh...you and alias are one and the same? Twp peas in the pod/

Hahahaha...nah...not really...you're just confused cause you're stinkin

drunk again aren't you?

Sober up bozo.

Frank

Adam Albright wrote:

>

>

> Actually that IS the point, but you're way too pigheaded to admit it.

>

> Windows is targeted because by far it is the most used operating

> system. If some nut case wants to waste his time to write a virus in

> only makes sense to write one that will infect the most machines.

> Those would be Windows boxes.

>

> Sure, Windows has more holes in it then a pound of thinly sliced Swiss

> cheese and perhaps because of it makes it somewhat easier to attack,

> but if Macs had the lion's share of the market or Linux did then they

> would be attacked the most simply because of their popularity. NO

> computer is immune to attack. Pretending otherwise is silly.

>

 

I don't believe it!

You've just agreed with me!

Good call..you must be off the booze for a few mins.

Keep it up...there is hope.

Frank

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

news:uy7YrH7vHHA.736@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Lang Murphy wrote:

>> "Jeanette" <jrusso2@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:OVt$BtyvHHA.4612@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

>>>> Because the user gives it permission, albeit unwittingly? How do you

>>>> think systems get infected?

>>>>

>>>> Re proof, two of us have provided reading material from Linux sources..

>>>> can you not read and comprehend them?

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

>>>> news:uxAiWXxvHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>> MICHAEL wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> * Alias:

>>>>>>> MICHAEL wrote:

>>>>>>>> * Alias:

>>>>>>>>> Back to the present. Use Ubuntu and never worry about a virus,

>>>>>>>>> root kit or any other

>>>>>>>>> malware. http://www.ubuntu.com/

>>>>>>>> http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/linux/901.php

>>>>>>>> Linux RootKits For Beginners - From Prevention to Removal

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> One day while reading a mail list for the Linux Users Group in my

>>>>>>>> hometown I discovered a call

>>>>>>>> for help. It was a posting from a novice Linux user with a

>>>>>>>> disturbing issue. While doing some

>>>>>>>> routine checks on a Linux system, he found a user that had been

>>>>>>>> added to the system with the

>>>>>>>> user id of 0 (root). His first thought was that it might be a

>>>>>>>> rootkit. He wanted to know what

>>>>>>>> he could do to verify it was a rootkit and how to remove it from

>>>>>>>> the system. He further asked

>>>>>>>> for suggestions on preventative measures to ensure this kind of

>>>>>>>> attack does not reoccur. That

>>>>>>>> situation prompted me to write this paper to an understanding of

>>>>>>>> rootkits and its effects. This

>>>>>>>> paper will also discuss how to monitor for a rootkit, and the steps

>>>>>>>> that need to be taken to

>>>>>>>> remove one.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I never said that a firewall wasn't necessary. Ubuntu comes with one

>>>>>>> built-in. I would also recommend a router hard firewall.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Use Ubuntu and never worry about a virus, root kit

>>>>>> or any other malware." -Alias

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You said "never", you were wrong.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Absolute truth" is for absolute fools.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> -Michael

>>>>>

>>>>> Is there an echo in here? If one has Ubuntu that comes with a firewall

>>>>> and a router with a firewall how, pray tell, will anyone install a

>>>>> root kit?

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>> There are several ways I have seen Linux systems be compromised.

>>>

>>> 1. Through an application that has security issues, such as older

>>> versions of Apache or BIND or even javascript.

>

> Ubuntu updates *everything* on your computer on a regular basis.

>

>>>

>>> 2. Weak SSH passwords. This is an attack vector many new users fail to

>>> protect.

>

> User's fault, then, isn't it?

>

>>>

>>> 3. Through installations of unknown software that might contain a root

>>> kit

>

> User's fault, then, isn't it?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> 3.

>>

>>

>> But... but... Alias said that could "never" happen? Is he possibly

>> mistaken? Does a bear...

>>

>> Lang

>

> There's always the possibility. It's also possible that your computer

> could be taken from you at the point of a gun. Neither scenario is likely.

>

> Alias

 

 

So... straight from the horse's mouth. So... it's unlikely you'd be

mistaken... about anything... geez... your daily posts in this ng clearly

show you're mistaken about how usenet ng's are supposed to work.

 

Lang

Jeff wrote:

>

>>

>> What I was disputing is your argument that because there are more Windows

>> boxes, there are more Windows viruses and malware than there are for

>> Linux. I say it's the difference in the architecture of each, not the

>> quantity of boxes out there. Get it now?

>>

>> Alias

>

> Let's say for example I am someone wanting to write a virus to infect as

> many computers as possible. I'm going to target windows computers because

> there's FAR more of them than there are linux boxes... Now do you get

> it...

>

> Jeff

 

You're going to target Windows because your virus will have a much much

easier time to do what viruses need to do, propagate. They can do it easily

in a Windows environment, but find it very difficult in a Linux

environment. To understand why, you'll need to understand how Linux is a

true multiuser operating system and at its core isolates user spaces from

one another and from the kernel space. A virus attacking a Linux box will

at most cause damage to files owned by that user. Hence, it cannot

propagate. Hence, it's ability to be a "virus" is short lived.

 

Shake Hands With,

Mr. Happy

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 04:20:38 +0200, Alias

> <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote:

>

>> Jeff wrote:

>>>> What I was disputing is your argument that because there are more

>>>> Windows boxes, there are more Windows viruses and malware than there

>>>> are for Linux. I say it's the difference in the architecture of each,

>>>> not the quantity of boxes out there. Get it now?

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>> Let's say for example I am someone wanting to write a virus to infect as

>>> many computers as possible. I'm going to target windows computers

>>> because there's FAR more of them than there are linux boxes... Now do

>>> you get it...

>>>

>>> Jeff

>> Besides the point.

>

> Actually that IS the point, but you're way too pigheaded to admit it.

>

> Windows is targeted because by far it is the most used operating

> system. If some nut case wants to waste his time to write a virus in

> only makes sense to write one that will infect the most machines.

> Those would be Windows boxes.

>

> Sure, Windows has more holes in it then a pound of thinly sliced Swiss

> cheese and perhaps because of it makes it somewhat easier to attack,

> but if Macs had the lion's share of the market or Linux did then they

> would be attacked the most simply because of their popularity. NO

> computer is immune to attack. Pretending otherwise is silly.

>

 

If what you say is true, and I doubt it, we can always rely on the likes

of Frank to stay with Windows. Don't think there are a lot of Franks

around? Bush's reelection proves there are.

 

That said, Linux, IMHO, is much more secure than Windows.

 

Alias

Mr. Happy wrote:

> Jeff wrote:

>

>>> What I was disputing is your argument that because there are more Windows

>>> boxes, there are more Windows viruses and malware than there are for

>>> Linux. I say it's the difference in the architecture of each, not the

>>> quantity of boxes out there. Get it now?

>>>

>>> Alias

>> Let's say for example I am someone wanting to write a virus to infect as

>> many computers as possible. I'm going to target windows computers because

>> there's FAR more of them than there are linux boxes... Now do you get

>> it...

>>

>> Jeff

>

> You're going to target Windows because your virus will have a much much

> easier time to do what viruses need to do, propagate. They can do it easily

> in a Windows environment, but find it very difficult in a Linux

> environment. To understand why, you'll need to understand how Linux is a

> true multiuser operating system and at its core isolates user spaces from

> one another and from the kernel space. A virus attacking a Linux box will

> at most cause damage to files owned by that user. Hence, it cannot

> propagate. Hence, it's ability to be a "virus" is short lived.

>

> Shake Hands With,

> Mr. Happy

 

Thank you. Very well put.

 

Alias

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:33:34 -0700, Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Jeff wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>>

>>>> If it's not in the repository, no need to download or install it. If

>>>> you stupidly go out of your way to put crap on a Linux machine, of

>>>> course, it's possible!

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>>

>>> Which would represent the majority of users out there...

>>>

>>> Jeff

>>

>>

>> Did you learn this supercilious attitude at Redmond? Users are becoming

>> more computer savvy. It's not 1998 anymore.

>>

>> Alias

>

> Yep, you got that one right!

> Linux is losing market share.

> Frank

 

I wouldn't quite us a blanket statement like that Frank. =)

 

There was a survey done here in Germany among software developers and

related IT companies. The results and trends were quite interesting. Now

granted, this is just specific to IT/Software Development but then again,

it is exactly those people who create the products for the market and

determine the users available choices. So to me, a gain in that area is a

pre-requisite before a gain in the general user area can ever occur.

 

Percentage of those who still consider windows important for development

dropped by 12 percent since 2006 down to 64.8 percent. Reasoning being an

increased use of Linux, which rose to about 12% and is expected to hit

about 18% by 2008. And yes, this takes Vista's release into account.

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>> Jeff wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>

>>>>> I'm not being picky just stating a fact....

>>>>>

>>>>> I also don't see it as being "safer" just less likely to be attacked

>>>>> as there are far fewer linux boxes out there than winodws boxes...

>>>>>

>>>>> Jeff

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> That's the standard reason given but it's false.

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>>

>>> It is a FACT, there are far fewer linux boxes than windows boxes...

>>>

>>> Jeff

>>

>>

>> I wasn't disputing that. Course, how long this will last is up to MS'

>> "anti piracy" and "arrogance" departments which have gone a long way in

>> helping to promote Linux. I know I would have never switched if it

>> weren't for that and the built-in DRM.

>>

>> What I was disputing is your argument that because there are more

>> Windows boxes, there are more Windows viruses and malware than there are

>> for Linux. I say it's the difference in the architecture of each, not

>> the quantity of boxes out there. Get it now?

>>

>> Alias

>

> More lies from our resident linux lying troll.

> Since Vista came out (6-7) months ago, linux desktop % of market share

> has had a rather dramatic downturn (that's means they've lost market

> share!).

 

The question of "market share" doesn't come into play at all when it comes

to Linux. Linux is freely available for anyone that wants to download it.

It isn't part of the "market" (marketplace) for that very reason. This also

makes it impossible to assess how many desktops are running Linux. Linux

doesn't need to be activated or registered, so no figures available there.

Counting web hits from Linux boxes can't expose the reality either, as web

counters are focused on who wants to access particular content. Downloads,

hardly work either, as one can download one copy of a Linux distro, but go

on to install that one download on a multitude of computers. In short, we

have no idea how many Linux desktops are out there. What we do know, is

that it has been growing and with each passing year, new users are joining

the Linux fold. Enough must be doing it, that Microsoft has been concerned

by the trends and views Open Source as it's main challenge to its "market

share". :-)

 

Shake Hands With,

Mr. Happy

Jeff wrote:

>

> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

> news:u2lPswCwHHA.4736@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Jeff wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> If it's not in the repository, no need to download or install it. If

>>>> you stupidly go out of your way to put crap on a Linux machine, of

>>>> course, it's possible!

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>> Which would represent the majority of users out there...

>>>

>>> Jeff

>>

>> Did you learn this supercilious attitude at Redmond? Users are becoming

>> more computer savvy. It's not 1998 anymore.

>>

>> Alias

>

> The computer has grown to the point it is no longer a specialty item but

> is

> now considered a commodity. Meaning that the majority of users are not

> the tech savvy people that was out there when the pc first started finding

> its

> way into the home. There is a huge percentage of the population that

> surf's the web a random finding programs online that they don't know who

> they are really downloading it from, they install it and start having

> problems.

>

True in the Windows world. In the Linux world, it isn't that easy to just

pickup an application from anywhere and install it. A repository, like

Ubuntu's, will have over 25,500 software packages, and that is where the

typical Linux user will get his/her software. He/she will not be picking up

raw source code files and trying to compile them and install the binaries.

> If everyone is growing so savvy as you think explain why the geek squad at

> best buy is doing so well....

>

Most of their income comes from cleaning Windows machines of malware.

> Jeff

 

Shake Hands With,

Mr. Happy

Mr. Happy wrote:

>

>

> The question of "market share" doesn't come into play at all when it comes

> to Linux. Linux is freely available for anyone that wants to download it.

> It isn't part of the "market" (marketplace) for that very reason. This also

> makes it impossible to assess how many desktops are running Linux. Linux

> doesn't need to be activated or registered, so no figures available there.

> Counting web hits from Linux boxes can't expose the reality either, as web

> counters are focused on who wants to access particular content. Downloads,

> hardly work either, as one can download one copy of a Linux distro, but go

> on to install that one download on a multitude of computers. In short, we

> have no idea how many Linux desktops are out there. What we do know, is

> that it has been growing and with each passing year, new users are joining

> the Linux fold. Enough must be doing it, that Microsoft has been concerned

> by the trends and views Open Source as it's main challenge to its "market

> share". :-)

>

> Shake Hands With,

> Mr. Happy

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

Great rationalization and convoluted dreamworld linux lovin thinking.

Or, as they say, "nice try but no cigar".

Frank

Frank wrote:

> Mr. Happy wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> The question of "market share" doesn't come into play at all when it

>> comes to Linux. Linux is freely available for anyone that wants to

>> download it. It isn't part of the "market" (marketplace) for that very

>> reason. This also makes it impossible to assess how many desktops are

>> running Linux. Linux doesn't need to be activated or registered, so no

>> figures available there. Counting web hits from Linux boxes can't expose

>> the reality either, as web counters are focused on who wants to access

>> particular content. Downloads, hardly work either, as one can download

>> one copy of a Linux distro, but go on to install that one download on a

>> multitude of computers. In short, we have no idea how many Linux desktops

>> are out there. What we do know, is that it has been growing and with each

>> passing year, new users are joining the Linux fold. Enough must be doing

>> it, that Microsoft has been concerned by the trends and views Open Source

>> as it's main challenge to its "market share". :-)

>>

>> Shake Hands With,

>> Mr. Happy

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

> Great rationalization and convoluted dreamworld linux lovin thinking.

> Or, as they say, "nice try but no cigar".

> Frank

 

Thanks for your well-considered retort. I must assume, that you disagree

with each of the statements I made? I should learn to not argue with you,

as you are so good at tearing the bits apart with your indepth and

thoughtful analysis. You obviously are a great debater. Trouble is, your

kind of debating skills is what one would find in a primary school. You

have graduated from primary school, haven't you?

 

Shake Hands With,

Mr. Happy

Mr. Happy wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Mr. Happy wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> The question of "market share" doesn't come into play at all when it

>>> comes to Linux. Linux is freely available for anyone that wants to

>>> download it. It isn't part of the "market" (marketplace) for that very

>>> reason. This also makes it impossible to assess how many desktops are

>>> running Linux. Linux doesn't need to be activated or registered, so no

>>> figures available there. Counting web hits from Linux boxes can't expose

>>> the reality either, as web counters are focused on who wants to access

>>> particular content. Downloads, hardly work either, as one can download

>>> one copy of a Linux distro, but go on to install that one download on a

>>> multitude of computers. In short, we have no idea how many Linux desktops

>>> are out there. What we do know, is that it has been growing and with each

>>> passing year, new users are joining the Linux fold. Enough must be doing

>>> it, that Microsoft has been concerned by the trends and views Open Source

>>> as it's main challenge to its "market share". :-)

>>>

>>> Shake Hands With,

>>> Mr. Happy

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>> Great rationalization and convoluted dreamworld linux lovin thinking.

>> Or, as they say, "nice try but no cigar".

>> Frank

>

> Thanks for your well-considered retort. I must assume, that you disagree

> with each of the statements I made? I should learn to not argue with you,

> as you are so good at tearing the bits apart with your indepth and

> thoughtful analysis. You obviously are a great debater. Trouble is, your

> kind of debating skills is what one would find in a primary school. You

> have graduated from primary school, haven't you?

>

> Shake Hands With,

> Mr. Happy

>

 

He's a grade school drop out that has a mail order business in his

kitchen. The ONLY thing he is capable of his lying about you and

insulting you. When someone lies and insults him, however, he can't take

it and goes astral.

 

Alias

Mr. Happy wrote:

>

>

> Thanks for your well-considered retort. I must assume, that you disagree

> with each of the statements I made? I should learn to not argue with you,

> as you are so good at tearing the bits apart with your indepth and

> thoughtful analysis. You obviously are a great debater. Trouble is, your

> kind of debating skills is what one would find in a primary school. You

> have graduated from primary school, haven't you?

>

> Shake Hands With,

> Mr. Happy

>

 

Let's put it this way, you didn't pass marketing 101.

Frank

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 10:27:06 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>Mr. Happy wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> Thanks for your well-considered retort. I must assume, that you disagree

>> with each of the statements I made? I should learn to not argue with you,

>> as you are so good at tearing the bits apart with your indepth and

>> thoughtful analysis. You obviously are a great debater. Trouble is, your

>> kind of debating skills is what one would find in a primary school. You

>> have graduated from primary school, haven't you?

>>

>> Shake Hands With,

>> Mr. Happy

>>

>

>Let's put it this way, you didn't pass marketing 101.

>Frank

 

Nobody forgot your claimed marketing experience... Frank says he runs

some mom and pop "marketing" company off his kitchen table. Probably

some MLM rip off or chain letter scam.

 

ROTFLMAO!

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 10:27:06 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>

>> Mr. Happy wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> Thanks for your well-considered retort. I must assume, that you disagree

>>> with each of the statements I made? I should learn to not argue with you,

>>> as you are so good at tearing the bits apart with your indepth and

>>> thoughtful analysis. You obviously are a great debater. Trouble is, your

>>> kind of debating skills is what one would find in a primary school. You

>>> have graduated from primary school, haven't you?

>>>

>>> Shake Hands With,

>>> Mr. Happy

>>>

>> Let's put it this way, you didn't pass marketing 101.

>> Frank

>

> Nobody forgot your claimed marketing experience... Frank says he runs

> some mom and pop "marketing" company off his kitchen table. Probably

> some MLM rip off or chain letter scam.

>

> ROTFLMAO!

>

 

No, he sells a book called "Insult of the Day".

 

Alias

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 10:27:06 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>

>

>>Mr. Happy wrote:

>>

>>

>>>

>>>Thanks for your well-considered retort. I must assume, that you disagree

>>>with each of the statements I made? I should learn to not argue with you,

>>>as you are so good at tearing the bits apart with your indepth and

>>>thoughtful analysis. You obviously are a great debater. Trouble is, your

>>>kind of debating skills is what one would find in a primary school. You

>>>have graduated from primary school, haven't you?

>>>

>>>Shake Hands With,

>>>Mr. Happy

>>>

>>

>>Let's put it this way, you didn't pass marketing 101.

>>Frank

>

>

> Nobody forgot your claimed marketing experience... Frank says he runs

> some mom and pop "marketing" company off his kitchen table. Probably

> some MLM rip off or chain letter scam.

>

> ROTFLMAO!

>

 

Drunk for the weekend as usual you pitiful stinking drunk!

Sober up for pete's sake!

Have you no pride?

Oh, I forgot, you're the weakest loser in this ng.

Pity.

Frank

Alias wrote:

> Adam Albright wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 10:27:06 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>>

>>> Mr. Happy wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Thanks for your well-considered retort. I must assume, that you

>>>> disagree

>>>> with each of the statements I made? I should learn to not argue with

>>>> you,

>>>> as you are so good at tearing the bits apart with your indepth and

>>>> thoughtful analysis. You obviously are a great debater. Trouble is,

>>>> your

>>>> kind of debating skills is what one would find in a primary school. You

>>>> have graduated from primary school, haven't you?

>>>>

>>>> Shake Hands With,

>>>> Mr. Happy

>>>>

>>> Let's put it this way, you didn't pass marketing 101.

>>> Frank

>>

>>

>> Nobody forgot your claimed marketing experience... Frank says he runs

>> some mom and pop "marketing" company off his kitchen table. Probably

>> some MLM rip off or chain letter scam.

>>

>> ROTFLMAO!

>>

>

> No, he sells a book called "Insult of the Day".

>

> Alias

 

 

You're living in a constant state of denial.

Every post of yours is an insult fo one type or another.

Everybody in this ng has complained to you about your demeanor, name

calling an insultingly personal labeling (remember what you wrote about

me the other day...or did you forget?).

I suggest you shut your stupid insulting mouth once and for all and stop

making a fool out of yourself in public.

But then again, I don't think you have the intelligence to know when to

stop as you've already demonstrated.

Wise up!

You're starting to get into the danger zone.

Frank

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> Adam Albright wrote:

>>

>>> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 10:27:06 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Mr. Happy wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Thanks for your well-considered retort. I must assume, that you

>>>>> disagree

>>>>> with each of the statements I made? I should learn to not argue

>>>>> with you,

>>>>> as you are so good at tearing the bits apart with your indepth and

>>>>> thoughtful analysis. You obviously are a great debater. Trouble is,

>>>>> your

>>>>> kind of debating skills is what one would find in a primary school.

>>>>> You

>>>>> have graduated from primary school, haven't you?

>>>>>

>>>>> Shake Hands With,

>>>>> Mr. Happy

>>>>>

>>>> Let's put it this way, you didn't pass marketing 101.

>>>> Frank

>>>

>>>

>>> Nobody forgot your claimed marketing experience... Frank says he runs

>>> some mom and pop "marketing" company off his kitchen table. Probably

>>> some MLM rip off or chain letter scam.

>>>

>>> ROTFLMAO!

>>>

>>

>> No, he sells a book called "Insult of the Day".

>>

>> Alias

>

>

> You're living in a constant state of denial.

> Every post of yours is an insult fo one type or another.

> Everybody in this ng has complained to you about your demeanor, name

> calling an insultingly personal labeling (remember what you wrote about

> me the other day...or did you forget?).

> I suggest you shut your stupid insulting mouth once and for all and stop

> making a fool out of yourself in public.

> But then again, I don't think you have the intelligence to know when to

> stop as you've already demonstrated.

> Wise up!

> You're starting to get into the danger zone.

> Frank

 

Y-A-W-N

 

Alias

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:

>

>> Alias wrote:

>>

>>> Adam Albright wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 10:27:06 -0700, Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Mr. Happy wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Thanks for your well-considered retort. I must assume, that you

>>>>>> disagree

>>>>>> with each of the statements I made? I should learn to not argue

>>>>>> with you,

>>>>>> as you are so good at tearing the bits apart with your indepth and

>>>>>> thoughtful analysis. You obviously are a great debater. Trouble

>>>>>> is, your

>>>>>> kind of debating skills is what one would find in a primary

>>>>>> school. You

>>>>>> have graduated from primary school, haven't you?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Shake Hands With,

>>>>>> Mr. Happy

>>>>>>

>>>>> Let's put it this way, you didn't pass marketing 101.

>>>>> Frank

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Nobody forgot your claimed marketing experience... Frank says he runs

>>>> some mom and pop "marketing" company off his kitchen table. Probably

>>>> some MLM rip off or chain letter scam.

>>>>

>>>> ROTFLMAO!

>>>>

>>>

>>> No, he sells a book called "Insult of the Day".

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>

>>

>> You're living in a constant state of denial.

>> Every post of yours is an insult fo one type or another.

>> Everybody in this ng has complained to you about your demeanor, name

>> calling an insultingly personal labeling (remember what you wrote

>> about me the other day...or did you forget?).

>> I suggest you shut your stupid insulting mouth once and for all and

>> stop making a fool out of yourself in public.

>> But then again, I don't think you have the intelligence to know when

>> to stop as you've already demonstrated.

>> Wise up!

>> You're starting to get into the danger zone.

>> Frank

>

>

> Y-A-W-N

>

> Alias

 

Good answer...just be sure an keep both feet firmly in that out of

control mouth of yours.

Frank