MS09-054: Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer

[meb]

98 Guy wrote:
> MEB wrote:
>
>> IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was
>> DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS
>> produces prior to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there
>> have been missing function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE
>> NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY
>> elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
>> security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY
>> available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED
>> in 9X, however they DO EXIST.
>
> There is nothing on the internet that supports your claims. If there
> is, post a link to it - and NOT a generic search link that purports to
> address those points.

I did moron, its on MY site.

>
> The truth is that IE5 and up come with NT API emulator which implements
> all missing APIs required for IE on 9x platforms (mostly Unicode
> functions). IE is not tied to NT's security model.

WRONG, full Unicode comes ONLY via non-standard installation of unicows.

>
> IE6 SP1 uses .dlls that were written to work both in the 9x/ME family
> and in the NT-family of OSes. If you open, for instance, iexplor.exe in
> the Dependancy Walker, you'll will find those missing dependencies, too,
> and it works. AFAIK, that is due to the way browseui.dll, shlwapi.dll
> and shdocvw.dll were written: they have code that first checks whether
> those dependencies are satisfied, before calling for them. The known
> false positives are the following (you may not always see all of them):
>
> Missing modules:
>
> * APPHELP.DLL
> * USERENV.DLL
> * UXTHEME.DLL
>
> Missing functions:
>
> * CoWaitForMultipleHandles (in OLE32.DLL)
> * CoAllowSetForegroundWindow (in OLE32.DLL)
> * SHBindToParent (in SHELL32.DLL)
> * SHPathPrepareForWriteW (in SHELL32.DLL)
>
> Hence, lots of programs that do work OK still have, in Dependency Walker
> message window, those two warnings:
>
> "Warning: At least one delay-load dependency module was not found."
> "Warning: At least one module has an unresolved import due to a missing
> export function in a delay-load dependent module."

Nice, shows how you have kept up-to-date on the updates and what they
changed and WHY those DO appear [that's sarcasm].

NOW spend a little time trying to figure out WHY those exist...
HINT - What other files were necessary to modify to *ALLOW* the
installation and usage of IE6 in Win9X?

Then figure out [hint - actually look at] the updates installed ONLY
FOR IE6 and their relationships - HINT - WHY were these files
necessarily and constantly modified to ONLY work with IE6?

When you get that figured out [though I doubt you will] go back through
the updates to the LAST browser designed for the 9X/ME OSs and what
those contained.
HINT - the files necessary for IE6 usage were NOT installed nor were
they constantly modified throughout the IE6 support era.

When you get through all that WITH the proper knowledge and understand
of the inter-interoperability and relational characteristics {which in
your case will not occur} ponder upon *WHY not installing IE6* still
allows the 9X system to function as it was designed and should...
whereas AFTER installing IE6 even such basic elements like copy and move
are affected.

Now, since all you are attempting to prove is the INSTALL ABILITY of
the updates you BROUGHT in ignorance to this group...

SHOW YOUR LINKS TO NEW DEPENDENCY WALKER *PROFILING* LINKS AFTER
INSTALLING THESE PURPORTED UPDATES. Make sure to include profiles for
IE6, Explorer, and some of the other generally installed, like Office.>>>

Put the links to these materials below:



HOWEVER, since merely showing installation ability proves nothing of
value to the 9X user unless these files actually perform some function:

SHOW YOUR LINKS TO TEST RESULTS WHICH ADDRESS THE SUPPOSED FLAWS
AFFECTING THE 9X/ME OSs WHICH HAVE BEEN CORRECTED WITH THE INSTALLATION
OF THESE PURPORTED UPDATES USING 9X/ME SPECIFIC TESTS.>>>>

Put the links to these test results links below:



Moreover, since you, Jeff, and the purported Greg are recommending
installation, provide the links to your CAREFUL and EXTENSIVE
application compatibility testing showing no adverse issues related to
this installation.>>>>>

Put the links to the extensive long term compatibility test results below:


--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

[greg]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:57:03 -0400, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>98 Guy wrote:
>> MEB wrote:
>>
>>> IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was
>>> DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS
>>> produces prior to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there
>>> have been missing function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE
>>> NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY
>>> elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
>>> security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY
>>> available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED
>>> in 9X, however they DO EXIST.
>>
>> There is nothing on the internet that supports your claims. If there
>> is, post a link to it - and NOT a generic search link that purports to
>> address those points.
>
> I did moron, its on MY site.
>
>>
>> The truth is that IE5 and up come with NT API emulator which implements
>> all missing APIs required for IE on 9x platforms (mostly Unicode
>> functions). IE is not tied to NT's security model.
>
> WRONG, full Unicode comes ONLY via non-standard installation of unicows.
>
>>
>> IE6 SP1 uses .dlls that were written to work both in the 9x/ME family
>> and in the NT-family of OSes. If you open, for instance, iexplor.exe in
>> the Dependancy Walker, you'll will find those missing dependencies, too,
>> and it works. AFAIK, that is due to the way browseui.dll, shlwapi.dll
>> and shdocvw.dll were written: they have code that first checks whether
>> those dependencies are satisfied, before calling for them. The known
>> false positives are the following (you may not always see all of them):
>>
>> Missing modules:
>>
>> * APPHELP.DLL
>> * USERENV.DLL
>> * UXTHEME.DLL
>>
>> Missing functions:
>>
>> * CoWaitForMultipleHandles (in OLE32.DLL)
>> * CoAllowSetForegroundWindow (in OLE32.DLL)
>> * SHBindToParent (in SHELL32.DLL)
>> * SHPathPrepareForWriteW (in SHELL32.DLL)
>>
>> Hence, lots of programs that do work OK still have, in Dependency Walker
>> message window, those two warnings:
>>
>> "Warning: At least one delay-load dependency module was not found."
>> "Warning: At least one module has an unresolved import due to a missing
>> export function in a delay-load dependent module."
>
> Nice, shows how you have kept up-to-date on the updates and what they
>changed and WHY those DO appear [that's sarcasm].
>
> NOW spend a little time trying to figure out WHY those exist...
> HINT - What other files were necessary to modify to *ALLOW* the
>installation and usage of IE6 in Win9X?
>
> Then figure out [hint - actually look at] the updates installed ONLY
>FOR IE6 and their relationships - HINT - WHY were these files
>necessarily and constantly modified to ONLY work with IE6?
>
>When you get that figured out [though I doubt you will] go back through
>the updates to the LAST browser designed for the 9X/ME OSs and what
>those contained.
> HINT - the files necessary for IE6 usage were NOT installed nor were
>they constantly modified throughout the IE6 support era.
>
> When you get through all that WITH the proper knowledge and understand
>of the inter-interoperability and relational characteristics {which in
>your case will not occur} ponder upon *WHY not installing IE6* still
>allows the 9X system to function as it was designed and should...
>whereas AFTER installing IE6 even such basic elements like copy and move
>are affected.
>
> Now, since all you are attempting to prove is the INSTALL ABILITY of
>the updates you BROUGHT in ignorance to this group...
>
> SHOW YOUR LINKS TO NEW DEPENDENCY WALKER *PROFILING* LINKS AFTER
>INSTALLING THESE PURPORTED UPDATES. Make sure to include profiles for
>IE6, Explorer, and some of the other generally installed, like Office.>>>
>
>Put the links to these materials below:
>
>
>
> HOWEVER, since merely showing installation ability proves nothing of
>value to the 9X user unless these files actually perform some function:
>
> SHOW YOUR LINKS TO TEST RESULTS WHICH ADDRESS THE SUPPOSED FLAWS
>AFFECTING THE 9X/ME OSs WHICH HAVE BEEN CORRECTED WITH THE INSTALLATION
>OF THESE PURPORTED UPDATES USING 9X/ME SPECIFIC TESTS.>>>>
>
>Put the links to these test results links below:
>
>
>
> Moreover, since you, Jeff, and the purported Greg are recommending
>installation, provide the links to your CAREFUL and EXTENSIVE
>application compatibility testing showing no adverse issues related to
>this installation.>>>>>
>
>Put the links to the extensive long term compatibility test results below:


We could do without the name calling and being insulting

Don't put words into my mouth. I never said to install it or not to
install it. I have not tried it yet. In fact if you read the link
98guy provided. You would see that the MSFN users recommend
installing this update on 98se. They did say not to install the
directx files unless you have a certain version of net framework
installed.


Greg

[meb]

Greg wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:57:03 -0400, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 98 Guy wrote:
>>> MEB wrote:
>>>
>>>> IE was *NEVER* properly ported to work within Win9X, *it was
>>>> DESIGNED for the NTs* [the transitional browser Microsoft ALWAYS
>>>> produces prior to releasing/for a new OS]. Since DAY ONE there
>>>> have been missing function calls in 9X within IE6 *WHICH ARE
>>>> NECESSARY FOR FULL SECURITY FUNCTIONING*. One of the KEY
>>>> elements is the user environment [usrenv] which INCLUDES the
>>>> security hooks to other NT ONLY security functions ONLY
>>>> available in those environments. The errors are REPRESSED
>>>> in 9X, however they DO EXIST.
>>> There is nothing on the internet that supports your claims. If there
>>> is, post a link to it - and NOT a generic search link that purports to
>>> address those points.
>> I did moron, its on MY site.
>>
>>> The truth is that IE5 and up come with NT API emulator which implements
>>> all missing APIs required for IE on 9x platforms (mostly Unicode
>>> functions). IE is not tied to NT's security model.
>> WRONG, full Unicode comes ONLY via non-standard installation of unicows.
>>
>>> IE6 SP1 uses .dlls that were written to work both in the 9x/ME family
>>> and in the NT-family of OSes. If you open, for instance, iexplor.exe in
>>> the Dependancy Walker, you'll will find those missing dependencies, too,
>>> and it works. AFAIK, that is due to the way browseui.dll, shlwapi.dll
>>> and shdocvw.dll were written: they have code that first checks whether
>>> those dependencies are satisfied, before calling for them. The known
>>> false positives are the following (you may not always see all of them):
>>>
>>> Missing modules:
>>>
>>> * APPHELP.DLL
>>> * USERENV.DLL
>>> * UXTHEME.DLL
>>>
>>> Missing functions:
>>>
>>> * CoWaitForMultipleHandles (in OLE32.DLL)
>>> * CoAllowSetForegroundWindow (in OLE32.DLL)
>>> * SHBindToParent (in SHELL32.DLL)
>>> * SHPathPrepareForWriteW (in SHELL32.DLL)
>>>
>>> Hence, lots of programs that do work OK still have, in Dependency Walker
>>> message window, those two warnings:
>>>
>>> "Warning: At least one delay-load dependency module was not found."
>>> "Warning: At least one module has an unresolved import due to a missing
>>> export function in a delay-load dependent module."
>> Nice, shows how you have kept up-to-date on the updates and what they
>> changed and WHY those DO appear [that's sarcasm].
>>
>> NOW spend a little time trying to figure out WHY those exist...
>> HINT - What other files were necessary to modify to *ALLOW* the
>> installation and usage of IE6 in Win9X?
>>
>> Then figure out [hint - actually look at] the updates installed ONLY
>> FOR IE6 and their relationships - HINT - WHY were these files
>> necessarily and constantly modified to ONLY work with IE6?
>>
>> When you get that figured out [though I doubt you will] go back through
>> the updates to the LAST browser designed for the 9X/ME OSs and what
>> those contained.
>> HINT - the files necessary for IE6 usage were NOT installed nor were
>> they constantly modified throughout the IE6 support era.
>>
>> When you get through all that WITH the proper knowledge and understand
>> of the inter-interoperability and relational characteristics {which in
>> your case will not occur} ponder upon *WHY not installing IE6* still
>> allows the 9X system to function as it was designed and should...
>> whereas AFTER installing IE6 even such basic elements like copy and move
>> are affected.
>>
>> Now, since all you are attempting to prove is the INSTALL ABILITY of
>> the updates you BROUGHT in ignorance to this group...
>>
>> SHOW YOUR LINKS TO NEW DEPENDENCY WALKER *PROFILING* LINKS AFTER
>> INSTALLING THESE PURPORTED UPDATES. Make sure to include profiles for
>> IE6, Explorer, and some of the other generally installed, like Office.>>>
>>
>> Put the links to these materials below:
>>
>>
>>
>> HOWEVER, since merely showing installation ability proves nothing of
>> value to the 9X user unless these files actually perform some function:
>>
>> SHOW YOUR LINKS TO TEST RESULTS WHICH ADDRESS THE SUPPOSED FLAWS
>> AFFECTING THE 9X/ME OSs WHICH HAVE BEEN CORRECTED WITH THE INSTALLATION
>> OF THESE PURPORTED UPDATES USING 9X/ME SPECIFIC TESTS.>>>>
>>
>> Put the links to these test results links below:
>>
>>
>>
>> Moreover, since you, Jeff, and the purported Greg are recommending
>> installation, provide the links to your CAREFUL and EXTENSIVE
>> application compatibility testing showing no adverse issues related to
>> this installation.>>>>>
>>
>> Put the links to the extensive long term compatibility test results below:
>
>
> We could do without the name calling and being insulting
>
> Don't put words into my mouth. I never said to install it or not to
> install it. I have not tried it yet. In fact if you read the link
> 98guy provided. You would see that the MSFN users recommend
> installing this update on 98se. They did say not to install the
> directx files unless you have a certain version of net framework
> installed.
>
>
> Greg

Are you 98 Guy??? then shut up it has nothing to do with you. YOU are
to supply the links to the materials..

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

[meb]

Sunny wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O%23ofbB2UKHA.4484@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> <snip>
>> Are you 98 Guy??? then shut up it has nothing to do with you. YOU are
>> to supply the links to the materials..
>
> Tsk Tsk, You don't get to "order" anyone on Usenet to do anything,
> If you got with the real World, not your paranoid version of it, you
> might just learn something, instead of "knowing it all".
>
>

OK, Sunny you want to play, how about you dazzle the world with your
obviously superior knowledge of Win98, vulnerabilities, inter-relational
issues, system applicability by providing the details necessary to show
WITHOUT QUESTION that these suggested files provide ANY NECESSARY
FUNCTION concerning any known or potential vulnerabilities with 9X/ME,
IE6, and security enhancements or system flaws within the IE6 browser
AND Win98/ME.

Provide the links below to materials which verify your statements AND
which proofs the issues.>>>>



--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

[greg]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:42:07 -0400, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
wrote:


>>>
>>> Moreover, since you, Jeff, and the --->purported Greg<----- are recommending
>>> installation,

>> We could do without the name calling and being insulting

>
> Are you 98 Guy??? then shut up it has nothing to do with you. YOU are
>to supply the links to the materials..


1st I never ever said to install or not to install the update. All I
mentioned was the msfn forums that 98guy linked to. It tells you how
to install those files on windows 98se. I didn't totally agree
with 98guy or you. I still have not install those files, I don't
use IE 6 is windows 98se much.


Greg

[meb]

Just a little reminder for those perhaps unfamiliar with the Usenet
culture. There is a common suggestion: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
*Expect though*, that there will be those who MUST *tromp on the
trolls* so the world knows what and who they are and/or to dispel
whatever myth or falsehood may be involved. You can generally recognize
a REAL troll or these other parties rather easily by what they
consistently use [attacks against parties and their viable materials]
and their type of posting style.
These low-life Usenetters [note1], generally without anything of value
to post and lacking the intelligence necessary to do so; they *WILL*
attack [often several trolls and sockpuppets at a time] those posting
viable materials attempting to take over the various groups for their
own usage or to kill the respective group [a personal satisfaction to
these types]; and to discredit viable parties and postings to whatever
extent possible.
There are also those who deliberately post false information with
seemingly legitimate links or arguments, or who actually believe the
"urban myths" regardless of ALL of the materials and arguments
otherwise; it does not, however, change what these people are, the scum
of Usenet and what will bring its ultimate demise.

Please read the below so you might have a better understanding of the
various types of parties [there are other classifications], and what to
expect within Usenet. Here's a hint, if the party posting is using their
REAL name, you can likely, a least, consider their post *might* be of
value, since what they post follows them to their REAL life. Note
though: Usenet is also filled with Identity theft, so look for those
parties including some method of verification of who they are.

Here's a well put idea taken from jonz, a dejanews user/troll's sig
[per a discussion with this entity], who must have forgotten this *was*
the sig being used, unless it was a sub-conscious admission and warning
of what this party is/was:

""Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford,1992"

So here's "the rest of the story" {Paul Harvey's well known keymark
statement}:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Int ... 27re_a_dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_ ... culture%29

note1 - Not all Usenetters are trolls or such, but there ARE vast
numbers of them throughout Usenet with apparently nothing better to do
in their miserable and pathetic lives but to use the groups for their
own inexorable and infantile amusement.

[greg]

post snipped.

Read carefully.

This has nothing to do with the Operating system, which you seem not
to get. Jeff Richards made it perfectly clear, what I was talking
about but said it lot better then I did. I agree with Jeff. It does
hurt to install it, it may or may not help security but it wont make
it less secure period. Like you claim.

As far as the link, go a re-read 98guy post, He provided it for you.

From reading that link and the poster.
It does hurt to install it, but they said don't replace the directx
files unless you have a certain version of net framework installed.



Greg

[meb]

Greg wrote:
> post snipped.
>
> Read carefully.
>
> This has nothing to do with the Operating system, which you seem not
> to get. Jeff Richards made it perfectly clear, what I was talking
> about but said it lot better then I did. I agree with Jeff. It does
> hurt to install it, it may or may not help security but it wont make
> it less secure period. Like you claim.
>
> As far as the link, go a re-read 98guy post, He provided it for you.
>
> From reading that link and the poster.
> It does hurt to install it, but they said don't replace the directx
> files unless you have a certain version of net framework installed.
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>

Read extra carefully -- IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE OPERATING
SYSTEM.. system files WERE changed and ARE AGAIN with installation of
these supposed updates...

Jeff was an idiot posting what he did...

Hey, how many times do I need to tell you I *don't need to visit MSFN*...

Now, WHERE are your links?

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

[greg]

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:33:26 -0400, MEB <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Read extra carefully -- IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE OPERATING
>SYSTEM.. system files WERE changed and ARE AGAIN with installation of
>these supposed updates...

This where me, Jeff, 98guy and the msfn forum poster disagree with
you.

Since, you were to lazy to look back. Here is the link.

http://www.msfn.org/board/latest-ms-ie6 ... 36563.html

Read post numbers
8, 9, 11, 12

http://www.msfn.org/board/directx-9-0c- ... hl=DirectX

Read post
7, 21, 22,
27 (Neat thing he/she did)
28

So the last release worked.

Proved my point.


Greg

[meb]

Just a little reminder for those perhaps unfamiliar with the Usenet
culture. There is a common suggestion: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
*Expect though*, that there will be those who MUST *tromp on the
trolls* so the world knows what and who they are and/or to dispel
whatever myth or falsehood may be involved. You can generally recognize
a REAL troll or these other parties rather easily by what they
consistently use [attacks against parties and their viable materials]
and their type of posting style.
These low-life Usenetters [note1], generally without anything of value
to post and lacking the intelligence necessary to do so; they *WILL*
attack [often several trolls and sockpuppets at a time] those posting
viable materials attempting to take over the various groups for their
own usage or to kill the respective group [a personal satisfaction to
these types]; and to discredit viable parties and postings to whatever
extent possible.
There are also those who deliberately post false information with
seemingly legitimate links or arguments, or who actually believe the
"urban myths" regardless of ALL of the materials and arguments
otherwise; it does not, however, change what these people are, the scum
of Usenet and what will bring its ultimate demise.

Please read the below so you might have a better understanding of the
various types of parties [there are other classifications], and what to
expect within Usenet. Here's a hint, if the party posting is using their
REAL name, you can likely, a least, consider their post *might* be of
value, since what they post follows them to their REAL life. Note
though: Usenet is also filled with Identity theft, so look for those
parties including some method of verification of who they are.

Here's a well put idea taken from jonz, a dejanews user/troll's sig
[per a discussion with this entity], who must have forgotten this *was*
the sig being used, unless it was a sub-conscious admission and warning
of what this party is/was:

""Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford,1992"

So here's "the rest of the story" {Paul Harvey's well known keymark
statement}:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Int ... 27re_a_dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_ ... culture%29

note1 - Not all Usenetters are trolls or such, but there ARE vast
numbers of them throughout Usenet with apparently nothing better to do
in their miserable and pathetic lives but to use the groups for their
own inexorable and infantile amusement.

[meb]

Just a little reminder for those perhaps unfamiliar with the Usenet
culture. There is a common suggestion: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
*Expect though*, that there will be those who MUST *tromp on the
trolls* so the world knows what and who they are and/or to dispel
whatever myth or falsehood may be involved. You can generally recognize
a REAL troll or these other parties rather easily by what they
consistently use [attacks against parties and their viable materials]
and their type of posting style.
These low-life Usenetters [note1], generally without anything of value
to post and lacking the intelligence necessary to do so; they *WILL*
attack [often several trolls and sockpuppets at a time] those posting
viable materials attempting to take over the various groups for their
own usage or to kill the respective group [a personal satisfaction to
these types]; and to discredit viable parties and postings to whatever
extent possible.
There are also those who deliberately post false information with
seemingly legitimate links or arguments, or who actually believe the
"urban myths" regardless of ALL of the materials and arguments
otherwise; it does not, however, change what these people are, the scum
of Usenet and what will bring its ultimate demise.

Please read the below so you might have a better understanding of the
various types of parties [there are other classifications], and what to
expect within Usenet. Here's a hint, if the party posting is using their
REAL name, you can likely, a least, consider their post *might* be of
value, since what they post follows them to their REAL life. Note
though: Usenet is also filled with Identity theft, so look for those
parties including some method of verification of who they are.

Here's a well put idea taken from jonz, a dejanews user/troll's sig
[per a discussion with this entity], who must have forgotten this *was*
the sig being used, unless it was a sub-conscious admission and warning
of what this party is/was:

""Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford,1992"

So here's "the rest of the story" {Paul Harvey's well known keymark
statement}:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Int ... 27re_a_dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_ ... culture%29

note1 - Not all Usenetters are trolls or such, but there ARE vast
numbers of them throughout Usenet with apparently nothing better to do
in their miserable and pathetic lives but to use the groups for their
own inexorable and infantile amusement.

[meb]

Just a little reminder for those perhaps unfamiliar with the Usenet
culture. There is a common suggestion: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.
*Expect though*, that there will be those who MUST *tromp on the
trolls* so the world knows what and who they are and/or to dispel
whatever myth or falsehood may be involved. You can generally recognize
a REAL troll or these other parties rather easily by what they
consistently use [attacks against parties and their viable materials]
and their type of posting style.
These low-life Usenetters [note1], generally without anything of value
to post and lacking the intelligence necessary to do so; they *WILL*
attack [often several trolls and sockpuppets at a time] those posting
viable materials attempting to take over the various groups for their
own usage or to kill the respective group [a personal satisfaction to
these types]; and to discredit viable parties and postings to whatever
extent possible.
There are also those who deliberately post false information with
seemingly legitimate links or arguments, or who actually believe the
"urban myths" regardless of ALL of the materials and arguments
otherwise; it does not, however, change what these people are, the scum
of Usenet and what will bring its ultimate demise.

Please read the below so you might have a better understanding of the
various types of parties [there are other classifications], and what to
expect within Usenet. Here's a hint, if the party posting is using their
REAL name, you can likely, a least, consider their post *might* be of
value, since what they post follows them to their REAL life. Note
though: Usenet is also filled with Identity theft, so look for those
parties including some method of verification of who they are.

Here's a well put idea taken from jonz, a dejanews user/troll's sig
[per a discussion with this entity], who must have forgotten this *was*
the sig being used, unless it was a sub-conscious admission and warning
of what this party is/was:

""Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
- Gene Spafford,1992"

So here's "the rest of the story" {Paul Harvey's well known keymark
statement}:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Int ... 27re_a_dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_posting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_ ... culture%29

note1 - Not all Usenetters are trolls or such, but there ARE vast
numbers of them throughout Usenet with apparently nothing better to do
in their miserable and pathetic lives but to use the groups for their
own inexorable and infantile amusement.