In message <OTMKmHFWKHA.3428 RemoveThis @TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, MEB
<MEB-not-here RemoveThis @hotmail.com> writes:
>98 Guy wrote:
>> MEB wrote:
>
>NOTICE AND SUMMARY
>
>NOTICE:
> This was yet another attempt by this entity to bring another useless
>discussion and which will contain NOTHING of value from 98 Guy.
> Useless purported arguments will be submitted to which I am supposed to
>respond to so 98 Guy [or sockpuppets] can then have something to do,
Too many "to"s in there (and a repetition of this "sockpuppet" thing,
whatever that is).
>while I, supposedly, dance on string providing a never ending series of
>explanations or countering arguments to lame materials.
Dance away (-:
>
>** WARNING DO NOT FEED THIS TROLL IN PARTICULAR **
>
> The entity above, 98 Guy, for which this Notice was applied to, has
"for which this notice was applied to"?
>been repeatedly identified as troll and Usenet abuser. The history
Only by you. Whereas the entity MEB has been identified as a PITA by
several of us. (And yet can still post short, calm, and helpful answers
sometimes.)
[]
> On 10/18/09 98 Guy brought the suggestion to this group to install
>files from supposed compatible versions from MS09-054 into Win9X for
>Internet Explorer 6 Sp1.
"suggestion". He wasn't ordering anyone to.
>
> *Note specifically*, there are a series of tests which must be done by
>this 98 Guy [or links to those tests for review] to prove the issues
>brought here in this discussion, the installation impact and safety of
>installing these files into Windows 98.
As another has said, you don't call the shots. There's nothing he "must"
do.
> Instead of doing so, arguments are placed over 10 days by 98 Guy and
>others, of:
> impossibility;
> unreasonableness;
> that *I* am supposed to provide the tests;
What's wrong with that suggestion? You say he should, he (and others)
say you should; I'd say that's about even.
[]
> and numerous other lame arguments and excuses, purportedly backing the
>stance of 98 Guy.
Anything that doesn't agree with you is a "lame argument or excuse" - by
your definition only.
>
> Various other parties have also entered into this discussion
>purportedly to bring other viable issues though apparently more to
>discredit me than bring anything of value; a standard troll entered, and
You're so easy to discredit, it's sometimes irresistible (-:
>a sockpuppet [at least one].
That word again. From the way you use it, I presume it's supposed to be
an insult; however, insults aren't effective if those insulted don't
know what they mean! (I had a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet, but am none the wiser as to
either why it's supposed to be an insult, or how it applies to this
thread. Perhaps you will amend the Wikipedia article ...)
> Each of these parties were assigned some test or questions to answer to
You can hand out the exam papers as much as you like.
[]
> Ten days of responses describing exactly WHY these files should not be
>placed within Windows 9X without test results and verification have been
>provided by me, the PRIMARY being there are no tests that:
>
>1. back up their installation safety within the 9X system;
>
>2. any other adverse application impact does not occur, including upon
>AV and other malware programs; and,
>
>3. there are no new unknown vulnerabilities, verses the well known
(versUs)
>vulnerabilities checked for and protected (mostly) that are found within
>EOL Win98 and resultant IE6 SP1 level by various presently offered
>malware applications and otherwise.
You don't want much, do you! Testing for all of that lot would take
forever - possibly literally, since you want unknown things tested for
too. And if you're going to apply similar criteria to any suggestion,
nothing will ever be done to improve '98 again. Which of course may be
what you want - a sort of preserved in aspic thing, like you find in the
more old-fashioned museums. Some people actually want to _use_ it,
though.
[]
> Regarding 98 Guy:
>
> Please do NOT respond to this entity 98 Guy or what they post. Attempts
>to hold actual intelligent discussions are futile.
Ditto for MEB - in this thread, anyway.
[]
> For another example, 98 Guy has repeatedly brought the supposed
>legality of stolen software for discussion in this group and argued it
>from every conceivable angle, even BRAGGING of stealing software via
Now there we are in agreement: 98g is at the extreme end of the spectrum
where this matter is concerned. You are probably close to the other end,
or at least appear to wish to seem so.
[]
> I am creating additional web pages to show the exact reasons for this
>identification and will post links in a standard Usenet WARNING as they
>are added.
(There is no such thing as a "standard Usenet WARNING"; I presume you
mean one of YOUR textfiles, like the troll one, which have all become so
bored with. Of course, I expect I'll be in one of them.)
>
> 98 Guy will surely respond to this post or one of the sockpuppets will,
>so the response WILL be the Usenet Troll warning.
>
I'd almost be disappointed if it wasn't (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
**
http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
The most wasted of all days is one without laughter. -e.e. cummings, poet
(1894-1962)
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
