Discussion:
A Google Groups conundrum
(too old to reply)
~BD~
2010-08-19 18:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Here is a screenshot of what I can see on my computer

Loading Image...

Can anyone else reproduce what I see in Google Groups?

(It was exactly like this in our local library too!)

Has anyone an explanation regarding the two distinct versions of post
1001? I'm always intrigued by such anomalies!
--
Dave
Dustin
2010-08-19 18:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Here is a screenshot of what I can see on my computer
http://i35.tinypic.com/280m4pf.jpg
Can anyone else reproduce what I see in Google Groups?
(It was exactly like this in our local library too!)
Has anyone an explanation regarding the two distinct versions of post
1001? I'm always intrigued by such anomalies!
That pic is so damn blurry I can't make out what your looking at very
well. I can see your researching posts made by me tho.. Stalkerish prick.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
~BD~
2010-08-19 19:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
Here is a screenshot of what I can see on my computer
http://i35.tinypic.com/280m4pf.jpg
Can anyone else reproduce what I see in Google Groups?
(It was exactly like this in our local library too!)
Has anyone an explanation regarding the two distinct versions of post
1001? I'm always intrigued by such anomalies!
That pic is so damn blurry I can't make out what your looking at very
well. I can see your researching posts made by me tho.. Stalkerish prick.
Maybe it's time for your next eye test, Dustin.

Would it help if I email the screenshot? It's pretty clear at my end.

Surely you can see well enough to understand my point?
Dustin
2010-08-20 21:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
Here is a screenshot of what I can see on my computer
http://i35.tinypic.com/280m4pf.jpg
Can anyone else reproduce what I see in Google Groups?
(It was exactly like this in our local library too!)
Has anyone an explanation regarding the two distinct versions of
post 1001? I'm always intrigued by such anomalies!
That pic is so damn blurry I can't make out what your looking at
very well. I can see your researching posts made by me tho..
Stalkerish prick.
Maybe it's time for your next eye test, Dustin.
I had to zoom into the pic; default under firefox is blurry.
Post by ~BD~
Surely you can see well enough to understand my point?
I don't understand your point. I see your confused about indexing
systems.. :)
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
~BD~
2010-08-20 22:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
Here is a screenshot of what I can see on my computer
http://i35.tinypic.com/280m4pf.jpg
Can anyone else reproduce what I see in Google Groups?
(It was exactly like this in our local library too!)
Has anyone an explanation regarding the two distinct versions of
post 1001? I'm always intrigued by such anomalies!
That pic is so damn blurry I can't make out what your looking at
very well. I can see your researching posts made by me tho..
Stalkerish prick.
Maybe it's time for your next eye test, Dustin.
I had to zoom into the pic; default under firefox is blurry.
Post by ~BD~
Surely you can see well enough to understand my point?
I don't understand your point. I see your confused about indexing
systems.. :)
I admit my confusion!

On the image to the left BoaterDave has made post number 1001 yet on the
image on the RHS George Orwell has made post 1001.

<shrug> Is it *really* simple to others?

If so, please explain.

BD
Peter Foldes
2010-08-21 02:47:49 UTC
Permalink
It is called the double numbered virus. Check your computer for infection. :-)
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Post by ~BD~
<shrug> Is it *really* simple to others?
If so, please explain.
BD
StevieO
2010-08-22 09:38:10 UTC
Permalink
LOL Indeed.


"Peter Foldes" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:i4neop$jvs$***@speranza.aioe.org...
It is called the double numbered virus. Check your computer for infection.
:-)
--
Peter
~BD~
2010-08-22 16:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
It is called the double numbered virus. Check your computer for infection. :-)
I'd have thought you, of all people, PF, would have known .......

Mac OS X doesn’t get PC viruses. And its built-in defenses help keep you
safe from other malware without the hassle of constant alerts and sweeps.

<q/p>

Defense against viruses and other malware.

Mac OS X offers a multilayered system of defenses against viruses and
other malicious applications, or malware. For example, it prevents
hackers from harming your programs through a technique called
“sandboxing” — restricting what actions programs can perform on your
Mac, what files they can access, and what other programs they can
launch. Other automatic security features include Library Randomization,
which prevents malicious commands from finding their targets, and
Execute Disable, which protects the memory in your Mac from attacks.

The 64-bit applications in Snow Leopard are even more secure from
hackers and malware than the 32-bit versions. That's because 64-bit
applications can use more advanced security techniques to fend off
malicious code. Learn more about 64-bit

<q/p>

http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/

HTH
--
Dave - maybe Peter Foldes thinks otherwise! Do you, Peter? ;-)
StevieO
2010-08-23 12:09:54 UTC
Permalink
LOL Keep thinking you are protected.

Show what a stupid fuckwit you are.
Post by Peter Foldes
It is called the double numbered virus. Check your computer for infection. :-)
I'd have thought you, of all people, PF, would have known .......

Mac OS X doesn’t get PC viruses. And its built-in defenses help keep you
safe from other malware without the hassle of constant alerts and sweeps.

<q/p>

Defense against viruses and other malware.

Mac OS X offers a multilayered system of defenses against viruses and
other malicious applications, or malware. For example, it prevents
hackers from harming your programs through a technique called
“sandboxing” — restricting what actions programs can perform on your
Mac, what files they can access, and what other programs they can
launch. Other automatic security features include Library Randomization,
which prevents malicious commands from finding their targets, and
Execute Disable, which protects the memory in your Mac from attacks.

The 64-bit applications in Snow Leopard are even more secure from
hackers and malware than the 32-bit versions. That's because 64-bit
applications can use more advanced security techniques to fend off
malicious code. Learn more about 64-bit

<q/p>

http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/

HTH
--
Dave - maybe Peter Foldes thinks otherwise! Do you, Peter? ;-)
Peter Foldes
2010-08-23 16:31:09 UTC
Permalink
BD

Bullshit. Mac cannot get virus? You are gravely mistaken. I can add another medal to
your computer expertise
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
It is called the double numbered virus. Check your computer for infection. :-)
I'd have thought you, of all people, PF, would have known .......
Mac OS X doesn’t get PC viruses. And its built-in defenses help keep you safe from
other malware without the hassle of constant alerts and sweeps.
Peter Foldes
2010-08-23 19:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Here you go Professor

One of many that Mac's get (virus,malware,Trojan

http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/1481
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
It is called the double numbered virus. Check your computer for infection. :-)
I'd have thought you, of all people, PF, would have known .......
Mac OS X doesn’t get PC viruses. And its built-in defenses help keep you safe from
other malware without the hassle of constant alerts and sweeps.
<q/p>
Defense against viruses and other malware.
Mac OS X offers a multilayered system of defenses against viruses and other
malicious applications, or malware. For example, it prevents hackers from harming
your programs through a technique called “sandboxing” — restricting what actions
programs can perform on your Mac, what files they can access, and what other
programs they can launch. Other automatic security features include Library
Randomization, which prevents malicious commands from finding their targets, and
Execute Disable, which protects the memory in your Mac from attacks.
The 64-bit applications in Snow Leopard are even more secure from hackers and
malware than the 32-bit versions. That's because 64-bit applications can use more
advanced security techniques to fend off malicious code. Learn more about 64-bit
<q/p>
http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/
HTH
--
Dave - maybe Peter Foldes thinks otherwise! Do you, Peter? ;-)
~BD~
2010-08-23 21:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
Here you go Professor
One of many that Mac's get (virus,malware,Trojan
http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/1481
That's one reason why one must keep up-to-date!

You will no doubt have noted that it *doesn't* effect OS X 10.6.4

However .......

The links you posted here recently proved to be of much interest.
However, after following each of them, I discovered that my Apple iMac
had been - um .....'adjusted' - so that I could not quit programmes such
as SeaMonkey and Thunderbird or, indeed, carry out a normal shutdown of
my machine. I had the 'Spinning wheel of death' whatever I did!

Just *how* did you achieve that Mr Foldes?
--
Dave - fascinated!
Peter Foldes
2010-08-23 21:59:26 UTC
Permalink
You are such an idiot David. I pulled one of thousands as a sample to show you that
it exists with Mac and Linux and PC

This what I posted was also for OS X 10.6.4. I will post it again just in case you
did not read it


http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/1481
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
Here you go Professor
One of many that Mac's get (virus,malware,Trojan
http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/1481
That's one reason why one must keep up-to-date!
You will no doubt have noted that it *doesn't* effect OS X 10.6.4
However .......
The links you posted here recently proved to be of much interest. However, after
following each of them, I discovered that my Apple iMac had been - um
.....'adjusted' - so that I could not quit programmes such as SeaMonkey and
Thunderbird or, indeed, carry out a normal shutdown of my machine. I had the
'Spinning wheel of death' whatever I did!
Just *how* did you achieve that Mr Foldes?
--
Dave - fascinated!
~BD~
2010-08-23 22:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
You are such an idiot David. I pulled one of thousands as a sample to
show you that it exists with Mac and Linux and PC
This what I posted was also for OS X 10.6.4. I will post it again just
in case you did not read it
http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/1481
I *did* read it!

No mention of 10.6.4 - apart from it being the *Solution*!

It says .........

Affected Products

Apple Mac OS X version 10.5.8 and prior
Apple Mac OS X version 10.6.3 and prior
Apple Mac OS X Server version 10.5.8 and prior
Apple Mac OS X Server version 10.6.3 and prior

**************

The item I originally posted was taken directly from the Apple web site.
You are now telling me that Apple is distributing false information. Not
only that, you are saying that Linux is now subject to malware infection
too.

Why should anyone believe *you* Peter?
--
Dave - I wonder if *anyone* here on SE believes you!
Peter Foldes
2010-08-24 00:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Sorry to burst your bubble. If cannot read then one cannot read. Read the page
completely Mr. Computer Expert

Mac OS X v10.6.4 Update :
Mac OS X Server v10.6.4 Update (Combo) :
Mac OS X Server v10.6.4 Update :
Security Update 2010-004 (Leopard-Client) :
Mac OS X Server v10.6.4 Update Mac mini (Mid 2010) :
Mac OS X v10.6.4 Update Mac mini (Mid 2010) :
Security Update 2010-004 (Leopard-Server) :


Mac OS X v10.6.4 Update (Combo) :
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1048
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
You are such an idiot David. I pulled one of thousands as a sample to
show you that it exists with Mac and Linux and PC
This what I posted was also for OS X 10.6.4. I will post it again just
in case you did not read it
http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/1481
I *did* read it!
No mention of 10.6.4 - apart from it being the *Solution*!
It says .........
Affected Products
Apple Mac OS X version 10.5.8 and prior
Apple Mac OS X version 10.6.3 and prior
Apple Mac OS X Server version 10.5.8 and prior
Apple Mac OS X Server version 10.6.3 and prior
**************
The item I originally posted was taken directly from the Apple web site. You are
now telling me that Apple is distributing false information. Not only that, you
are saying that Linux is now subject to malware infection too.
Why should anyone believe *you* Peter?
--
Dave - I wonder if *anyone* here on SE believes you!
~BD~
2010-08-24 07:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
Sorry to burst your bubble. If cannot read then one cannot read. Read
the page completely Mr. Computer Expert
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1048
So - are you saying that Vupen is a *more reliable source* than Apple?

http://www.vupen.com/english/solution-2010-1481-8.php

says ..........


Disclaimer : We have provided a link to the site below because it has
information that may be of interest to our users.

VUPEN Security does not endorse the views expressed or the facts
presented on the site below.

Click on the following link (or you will be taken there in 10 seconds) :

http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1048
--
Dave - Why Have I not heard of Vupen until it was raised in this thread?
Peter Foldes
2010-08-24 03:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Not Updated but you get the idea on Macs and malware\virus and etc

http://www.vupen.com/english/searchengine.php
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
~BD~
2010-08-24 08:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
Not Updated but you get the idea on Macs and malware\virus and etc
http://www.vupen.com/english/searchengine.php
Is this your way of apologising for the mistake *you* made, Peter?

Btw .........

MacScan 2.7

About MacScan

Will find, isolate, and remove spyware, keystroke loggers, and trojan
horses as well as detect whether remote administration applications have
been installed on a computer. By scanning files received as email
attachments or downloaded from the web, MacScan can proactively protect
computers from inadvertently accepting new spyware. MacScan’s malware
definitions are constantly being updated, letting users keep pace with
the hackers.

With MacScan’s blacklisted cookie scan you can remove blacklisted
tracking cookies without loosing all your saved usernames and passwords.
Keep up to date with the latest spyware definition updates!

The software is important in any multi-user environment, such as a
school or a workplace. Where multiple users have access to the same
computer, a single spyware program can put all of them at risk. MacScan
also allows users to thoroughly clean web browsers of all personal
information, ensuring that it is protected from both other users as well
as hackers. Many more features.

What’s New in this Version

- Enhances protection against the latest threats for Mac OS X, adding
usability enhancements and bug fixes.
- Additionally, MacScan 2.7 contains an improved user interface plus the
latest spyware definitions and tracking cookie blacklist. MacScan 2.7 is
also Snow Leopard compatible.

**

This information is from Apple's web site:-

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/networking_security/macscan.html

HTH
--
Dave
Peter Foldes
2010-08-24 10:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Is this your way of apologising for the mistake *you* made, Peter?
BTW. It is apologizing and not apologising (learn to spell David)

Dave

You see that you are a Troll. Apology for what. No error made? You are Trolling as
is Jenn.It is amusing to read. :-)
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Post by ~BD~
Is this your way of apologising for the mistake *you* made, Peter?
~BD~
2010-08-24 12:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
Post by ~BD~
Is this your way of apologising for the mistake *you* made, Peter?
BTW. It is apologizing and not apologising (learn to spell David)
Dave
You see that you are a Troll. Apology for what. No error made? You are
Trolling as is Jenn. It is amusing to read. :-)
Read here Mr Foldes:-

http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses

Where Apple states ............

"With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends against viruses
and other malicious applications, or malware. For example, it thwarts
hackers through a technique called “sandboxing” — restricting what
actions programs can perform on your Mac, what files they can access,
and what other programs they can launch. Other automatic security
features include Library Randomization, which prevents malicious
commands from finding their targets, and Execute Disable, which protects
the memory in your Mac from attacks."


What - *exactly* - is it that you cannot understand?

Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the Apple web site is telling
readers lies, are you?

If so, you will have to justify your assertion! :)
--
Dave
Peter Foldes
2010-08-24 12:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Yeah right. They are going to admit wrong. Sales is the keyword. You are a dumb
Troll
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Post by ~BD~
Is this your way of apologising for the mistake *you* made, Peter?
Peter Foldes
2010-08-24 12:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Crossposting Troll. Why the need to crosspost? Tell us the reason behind this
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
~BD~
2010-08-24 14:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
Crossposting Troll. Why the need to crosspost? Tell us the reason behind this
I simply want more people to recognise that Peter Foldes is *not* what
he purports to be! As I've said before, "The truth *will* out"!

There are some good and honest folk who post on 'alt.privacy.spyware' -
some of whom do *not* consider my concerns about 'bad guys' are misplaced.

The involvement of more people tends to lead to more interesting
discussions too - that is in /my/ opinion, of course!

Maybe some will come and join us on Scorched-Earth .... in place of
those ex-Annexcafe posters who came here (to SE) originally ........
........... but who then left because they could not stand the heat! ;-)

HTH
--
Dave
FromTheRafters
2010-08-25 01:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
Crossposting Troll. Why the need to crosspost? Tell us the reason
behind
this
I simply want more people to recognise that Peter Foldes is *not* what
he purports to be! As I've said before, "The truth *will* out"!
You would be better off defending a position where you were not *wrong*
from the beginning.

I'm referring of course to the whole Apple Computer campaign pretending
that their systems don't get malware due to some technology that they
have implemented.
Aardvark
2010-08-26 22:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
ex-Annexcafe posters who came here (to SE) originally ........
........... but who then left because they could not stand the heat! ;-)
Fucking pussies.
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
~BD~
2010-08-27 08:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
ex-Annexcafe posters who came here (to SE) originally ........
........... but who then left because they could not stand the heat! ;-)
Fucking pussies.
Agreed!

You have, I trust, also carefully considered the reasons why I selected
this *specific* newsgroup to 'hold court'!

Peter Foldes *will* be hung out to dry! Service in Vietnam be damned!
Quote: "They could not get anything out of me in Nam, for sure this here
is easy land"
StevieO
2010-08-27 10:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Cross posting Fuckwit.

You are bd's pussy.
Post by ~BD~
ex-Annexcafe posters who came here (to SE) originally ........
........... but who then left because they could not stand the heat! ;-)
Fucking pussies.
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
Quilljar
2010-08-24 13:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Apologising is UK English, and therefore preferable to 'apologizing' which
is USA English !

Q
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
Post by ~BD~
Is this your way of apologising for the mistake *you* made, Peter?
BTW. It is apologizing and not apologising (learn to spell David)
Dave
You see that you are a Troll. Apology for what. No error made? You are
Trolling as is Jenn. It is amusing to read. :-)
Read here Mr Foldes:-
http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses
Where Apple states ............
"With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends against viruses
and other malicious applications, or malware. For example, it thwarts
hackers through a technique called “sandboxing” — restricting what actions
programs can perform on your Mac, what files they can access, and what
other programs they can launch. Other automatic security features include
Library Randomization, which prevents malicious commands from finding
their targets, and Execute Disable, which protects the memory in your Mac
from attacks."
What - *exactly* - is it that you cannot understand?
Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the Apple web site is telling
readers lies, are you?
If so, you will have to justify your assertion! :)
--
Dave
~BD~
2010-08-25 07:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quilljar
Apologising is UK English, and therefore preferable to 'apologizing'
which is USA English !
Q
*Exactly* !!!!!!

Thanks for that 'Q' :)
FromTheRafters
2010-08-25 01:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses
Where Apple states ............
"With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends
against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.
[...]

Marketing crap.

[...]
Post by ~BD~
What - *exactly* - is it that you cannot understand?
Why time slows down in intense gravity *and* high velocity - both of
which apply to a body closely approaching a black hole.

...how is it *ever* going to get there (as if there were actually a
there, there in the first place)?
Post by ~BD~
Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the Apple web site is telling
readers lies, are you?
Why not? Their version of the truth seems incomplete to me. They seem to
think malware has to be something other than an application that the
user decided to execute, and that stolen computing power in a sandbox is
somehow of less value than stolen computing power outside a sandbox.

[...]
~BD~
2010-08-25 08:47:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses
Where Apple states ............
"With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends
against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.
[...]
Marketing crap.
[...]
I'd like you to explain which items on this web page are , as you call
it, "Marketing Crap"

http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/

There must, surely, be legislation in the USA which forbids a
corporation to publish incorrect or misleading information to the
population as a whole.

If something really *is* wrong, to which authority should such a matter
be reported?
--
Dave
FromTheRafters
2010-08-25 12:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses
Where Apple states ............
"With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends
against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.
[...]
Marketing crap.
[...]
I'd like you to explain which items on this web page are , as you call
it, "Marketing Crap"
The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you need. It
isn't. The second line, most people will read as Macs don't get viruses.
I'm sure they realize that, but why should they remove that statement if
they don't have to (it is not incorrect as they have worded it). You can
believe whatever you want about the rest of it, it is all down to just
my opinion anyway, it looks to me like they concentrate on the malware
that exploits software flaws and installs itself as if that is the only
type of malware. Other items are listed and the reader probably assumes
that they are unique to the Mac OS. Where would *you* draw the line
between "misleading information" and the right of an advertiser to allow
readers to make their own (perhaps even wrong) assumptions?
Post by ~BD~
http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/
There must, surely, be legislation in the USA which forbids a
corporation to publish incorrect or misleading information to the
population as a whole.
I remember hearing about the USA enacting "Truth in Advertising" laws
when I was younger.

...wondering what ever became of those... :o\

Oh, I remember "Happy Fun Ball". :oD
~BD~
2010-08-25 14:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses
Where Apple states ............
"With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends
against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.
[...]
Marketing crap.
[...]
I'd like you to explain which items on this web page are , as you call
it, "Marketing Crap"
The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you need. It
isn't.
You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!

The second line, most people will read as Macs don't get viruses.
Post by FromTheRafters
I'm sure they realize that, but why should they remove that statement if
they don't have to (it is not incorrect as they have worded it). You can
believe whatever you want about the rest of it, it is all down to just
my opinion anyway.
That's true, but I enjoy reading *your* opinions!
Post by FromTheRafters
It looks to me like they concentrate on the malware
that exploits software flaws and installs itself as if that is the only
type of malware. Other items are listed and the reader probably assumes
that they are unique to the Mac OS. Where would *you* draw the line
between "misleading information" and the right of an advertiser to allow
readers to make their own (perhaps even wrong) assumptions?
FWIW, although I partially accept your premise, I don't consider
technical information issued by a major manufacture to be 'advertising'
per se. It *should* be factual and truthful.
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/
There must, surely, be legislation in the USA which forbids a
corporation to publish incorrect or misleading information to the
population as a whole.
I remember hearing about the USA enacting "Truth in Advertising" laws
when I was younger.
...wondering what ever became of those... :o\
Oh, I remember "Happy Fun Ball". :oD
More need to investigate! That HFB rang no bells here. :(

But there's always a bright side - I found this .... and laughed out
loud!


Cheers!

Dave
FromTheRafters
2010-08-25 15:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses
Where Apple states ............
"With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends
against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.
[...]
Marketing crap.
[...]
I'd like you to explain which items on this web page are , as you call
it, "Marketing Crap"
The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you need. It
isn't.
You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html

Another thing is that an OS is built to aid the user in executing users'
choice programs, not about making those choices *for* the user. This
whole "With virtually no effort on your part..." caters to lazy
practices - which is where such security often fails. Sometimes what is
and is not malware lies in the choices a user makes, not in some
software exploit. Yes, even Mac users should realize that it is *their*
responibility to implement security, not some software's responsibility.
~BD~
2010-08-25 16:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
Post by FromTheRafters
The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you need.
It isn't.
You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
*Thank you*! A really good article which I recall reading at the time
(or thereabouts) of its publication.

I especially remember this (G.Cluley) "Social engineering is the
unifying threat that puts all computer users at risk, regardless of
operating system. And that's what most threats exploit."

I agree with that statement wholeheartedly!

<aside>

"Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is playing a
very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown that they are
prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."

The alleged author of the Melissa virus, David L Smith, is currently
being prosecuted and faces a maximum penalty of 40 years' imprisonment
and a fine of $480,000, if found guilty.

Cluley thinks that this case could also have put the wind up Raid. He
added, "Raid has been fairly quiet of late. Maybe he's just getting on
with his real life, or he's found girls or something, but he could well
have taken a look at this case and got the heebie-jeebies.""

<Raid is our very own Dustin Cook!>
Post by FromTheRafters
Another thing is that an OS is built to aid the user in executing users'
choice programs, not about making those choices *for* the user. This
whole "With virtually no effort on your part..." caters to lazy
practices - which is where such security often fails. Sometimes what is
and is not malware lies in the choices a user makes, not in some
software exploit. Yes, even Mac users should realize that it is *their*
responsibility to implement security, not some software's responsibility.
I am now in agreement with you! :)

Thank you for discussing this, FTR.

Did you like the Barclaycard advertisement, btw?

BD
FromTheRafters
2010-08-25 18:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
Post by FromTheRafters
The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you need.
It isn't.
You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
*Thank you*! A really good article which I recall reading at the time
(or thereabouts) of its publication.
I especially remember this (G.Cluley) "Social engineering is the
unifying threat that puts all computer users at risk, regardless of
operating system. And that's what most threats exploit."
I agree with that statement wholeheartedly!
I liked Gary McGraw's statement "... Mostly I have a Mac because it is a
better machine, not because it is more secure."
Post by ~BD~
<aside>
"Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is playing a
very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown that they are
prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."
Yeah, well, that's Graham for ya.

[...]
Post by ~BD~
<Raid is our very own Dustin Cook!>
I remember, his friends were genuinely concerned.
Post by ~BD~
Post by FromTheRafters
Another thing is that an OS is built to aid the user in executing users'
choice programs, not about making those choices *for* the user. This
whole "With virtually no effort on your part..." caters to lazy
practices - which is where such security often fails. Sometimes what is
and is not malware lies in the choices a user makes, not in some
software exploit. Yes, even Mac users should realize that it is *their*
responsibility to implement security, not some software's
responsibility.
I am now in agreement with you! :)
Thank you for discussing this, FTR.
Did you like the Barclaycard advertisement, btw?
I wasn't paying attention.
~BD~
2010-08-25 18:24:36 UTC
Permalink
On 25/08/2010 19:10, FromTheRafters wrote:
[....]
Post by FromTheRafters
I liked Gary McGraw's statement "... Mostly I have a Mac because it is a
better machine, not because it is more secure."
I'll agree with that! and ...... I like how it looks on my desk too!
Post by FromTheRafters
[...]
I wasn't paying attention.
Shame on you!

It was relevant because, like me, the Barclaycard advert. was banned!

Watch here! http://youtu.be/k3NrLgfp_4w

BD
Dustin
2010-08-26 15:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
Post by FromTheRafters
The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you
need. It isn't.
You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
*Thank you*! A really good article which I recall reading at the
time (or thereabouts) of its publication.
Mostly marketing FUD. Cluley was good for that. not much else.
Post by ~BD~
"Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is playing
a very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown that they
are prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."
Yes, well; obviously that never happened. Raid didn't do anything they
could prove was illegal. Cluley was nothing more than a glorified
mouthpiece for Sophos antivirus.
Post by ~BD~
Cluley thinks that this case could also have put the wind up Raid.
He added, "Raid has been fairly quiet of late. Maybe he's just
getting on with his real life, or he's found girls or something, but
he could well have taken a look at this case and got the
heebie-jeebies.""
<Raid is our very own Dustin Cook!>
Are you trying again to start trouble? Not that it matters much in this
case, Cluley was full of hot air looking for free media publications
(ie: free advertising for sophos). Back then, as they still tend to do,
many publications just take those individuals word as if it comes from
God himself.

That article of Cluley's is well over 10 years old and has nothing
whatsoever to do with google groups OR mac malware. So why did you feel
the need to post a section of it and then point towards me?
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
~BD~
2010-08-26 16:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
Post by FromTheRafters
The first line sounds really reassuring, like this is all you
need. It isn't.
You haven't explained "It isn't". More detail requested!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html
*Thank you*! A really good article which I recall reading at the
time (or thereabouts) of its publication.
Mostly marketing FUD. Cluley was good for that. not much else.
I don't agree with that. The cnet article was, AFAICT, an attempt by the
author Elinor Mills to elicit a wide range of views from industry
professionals
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
"Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is playing
a very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown that they
are prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."
Yes, well; obviously that never happened. Raid didn't do anything they
could prove was illegal. Cluley was nothing more than a glorified
mouthpiece for Sophos antivirus.
Is he not still?

He has held down his job with Sophos far longer than you were able to
hold down yours with Malwarebytes! ;-)
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
Cluley thinks that this case could also have put the wind up Raid.
He added, "Raid has been fairly quiet of late. Maybe he's just
getting on with his real life, or he's found girls or something, but
he could well have taken a look at this case and got the
heebie-jeebies.""
<Raid is our very own Dustin Cook!>
Are you trying again to start trouble?
Not at all!
Post by Dustin
Not that it matters much in this
case, Cluley was full of hot air looking for free media publications
(ie: free advertising for sophos). Back then, as they still tend to do,
many publications just take those individuals word as if it comes from
God himself.
Reporters for magazines and newspapers have to take advice from
*someone* and Graham Cluley has a good reputation I believe. Do you
think otherwise?
Post by Dustin
That article of Cluley's is well over 10 years old and has nothing
whatsoever to do with google groups OR mac malware. So why did you feel
the need to post a section of it and then point towards me?
Did you actually read the cnet article? Do you know anything about the
author? http://www.cnet.com/profile/elinormills/

Elinor is a Senior Writer - you may watch her chatting here if you wish:
http://www.cnet.com/profile/elinormills/#videos

I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what you
really are. I've read slanging matches between you and Graham on Google
Groups, most of which I guess you'd like to be forgotten. For his part,
I have *him* down in my 'good guy' book. Although I can't find you on
Wikipedia, one may read a bit about Graham here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cluley

I've never actually seen any article about you written by Graham Cluley
- maybe you are thinking of the article published here:

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-management/1999/08/26/virus-writer-turns-tail-covers-tracks-2073298/

HTH

D.
Dustin
2010-08-26 17:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Mostly marketing FUD. Cluley was good for that. not much else.
I don't agree with that. The cnet article was, AFAICT, an attempt by
the author Elinor Mills to elicit a wide range of views from
industry professionals
I really don't care if you agree.. I wasn't stating an opinion in so
much as I was stating a fact..
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
"Graham Cluley, senior technical consultant with Sophos anti-virus
believes Raid could now be in big trouble. He said, "Raid is
playing a very, very dangerous game. The US authorities have shown
that they are prepared to pursue this sort of thing by any means."
Yes, well; obviously that never happened. Raid didn't do anything
they could prove was illegal. Cluley was nothing more than a
glorified mouthpiece for Sophos antivirus.
Is he not still?
AFAIK, he is.
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Are you trying again to start trouble?
Not at all!
No? Strange, considering you pasted an article which has nothing to do
with the conversation. What else would you bother pasting an article
badmouthing me?
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Not that it matters much in this
case, Cluley was full of hot air looking for free media
publications (ie: free advertising for sophos). Back then, as they
still tend to do, many publications just take those individuals
word as if it comes from God himself.
Reporters for magazines and newspapers have to take advice from
*someone* and Graham Cluley has a good reputation I believe. Do you
think otherwise?
Cluley has a reputation as being a mouthpiece, nothing more; nothing
less.
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
That article of Cluley's is well over 10 years old and has nothing
whatsoever to do with google groups OR mac malware. So why did you
feel the need to post a section of it and then point towards me?
Did you actually read the cnet article? Do you know anything about
the author? http://www.cnet.com/profile/elinormills/
I read the article when it was first published; I'm sure I have it
archived here someplace. Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with
the conversation at hand; The reporter has written several other
articles, so there was no real valid reason for you to cite that one in
particular and reference me.
Post by ~BD~
Elinor is a Senior Writer - you may watch her chatting here if you
wish: http://www.cnet.com/profile/elinormills/#videos
Again, this article has nothing to do with the conversation here.
Post by ~BD~
I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what
you really are. I've read slanging matches between you and Graham on
Google Groups, most of which I guess you'd like to be forgotten. For
his part, I have *him* down in my 'good guy' book. Although I can't
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Cluley
To know me for what I really am? Yet, you quote a snippit of an article
written more than 10 years ago for this? Do you think I'm trying to
hide in some fashion and your doing the noble thing by preventing it?
Is that what you think is going on?

Why would you be able to find me on wikipedia? I'm nobodies mouth
piece. Your a sick fuck, BD.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
Aardvark
2010-08-27 00:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what you
really are.
I, for one, don't give a shit what he did in previous incarnations. We
all grow up.
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
~BD~
2010-08-27 06:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what you
really are.
I, for one, don't give a shit what he did in previous incarnations. We
all grow up.
Believe it or not ..... IAWTP! :)
StevieO
2010-08-27 10:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Cross posting Fuckwit.

bd's little pussy.
Post by ~BD~
I wanted to make sure posters on Scorched-Earth know you for what you
really are.
I, for one, don't give a shit what he did in previous incarnations. We
all grow up.
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
StevieO
2010-08-26 17:35:11 UTC
Permalink
LOL
Because he can and it makes you respond.

He knows how to jerk you every which way.


"Dustin" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@no...
~BD~ <***@hotmail.co.uk.> wrote in news:***@bt.com:

So why did you feel
the need to post a section of it and then point towards me?
Dustin
2010-08-26 17:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by StevieO
LOL
Because he can and it makes you respond.
He knows how to jerk you every which way.
Top posting fuckwit.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
~BD~
2010-08-26 18:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
Post by StevieO
LOL
Because he can and it makes you respond.
He knows how to jerk you every which way.
Top posting fuckwit.
IAWTP :)
StevieO
2010-08-26 20:39:30 UTC
Permalink
Print it and turn it over if you
have a problem.
Post by StevieO
LOL
Because he can and it makes you respond.
He knows how to jerk you every which way.
Top posting fuckwit.
--
"I like your allah. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
allah." - Dustin
Peter Foldes
2010-08-25 15:28:40 UTC
Permalink
David

You are a hard headed ignoramus. Give it up already. Macs can and do get infected on
a much smaller rate than PC's but they do get infected. Advertising by Apple even
HINTING that they do not is not right. It is worded on the Mac page as to sound they
are not is a very clever marketing ploy and the way it is put forward to the public
sounds different . But if you any resemblance of intelligence then you can read
between the lines in the advertising that it is not the case completely as presented


One of many links that touch on Mac's and viruses
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm

Using Bing as your search engine type in Mac and viruses and you will have
75,800,000 results confirming what you are squawking against
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses
Where Apple states ............
"With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends
against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.
[...]
Marketing crap.
[...]
I'd like you to explain which items on this web page are , as you call it,
"Marketing Crap"
http://www.apple.com/macosx/security/
There must, surely, be legislation in the USA which forbids a corporation to
publish incorrect or misleading information to the population as a whole.
If something really *is* wrong, to which authority should such a matter be
reported?
--
Dave
~BD~
2010-08-25 17:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
David
You are a hard headed ignoramus. Give it up already. Macs can and do get
infected on a much smaller rate than PC's but they do get infected.
Advertising by Apple even HINTING that they do not is not right. It is
worded on the Mac page as to sound they are not is a very clever
marketing ploy and the way it is put forward to the public sounds
different . But if you any resemblance of intelligence then you can read
between the lines in the advertising that it is not the case completely as presented
One of many links that touch on Mac's and viruses
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm
Using Bing as your search engine type in Mac and viruses and you will
have 75,800,000 results confirming what you are squawking against
I'm not quite as ignorant as you perceive Peter. I *am* aware that *any*
computer /can/ be infected - it is a machine and thus imperfect!

Interestingly ........

Security Update 2010-005 (Snow Leopard) was issued this *very* day!

"Security Update 2010-005 is recommended for all users and improves the
security of Mac OS X. Previous security updates have been incorporated
into this security update."

Ref: http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1094
--
Dave - SeaNymph (on SE) will no doubt be interested in the perceived
need to "read between the lines"!
Dustin
2010-08-26 15:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
David
You are a hard headed ignoramus. Give it up already. Macs can and
do get infected on a much smaller rate than PC's but they do get
infected. Advertising by Apple even HINTING that they do not is not
right. It is worded on the Mac page as to sound they are not is a
very clever marketing ploy and the way it is put forward to the
public sounds different . But if you any resemblance of
intelligence then you can read between the lines in the advertising
that it is not the case completely as presented
One of many links that touch on Mac's and viruses
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_an
d_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm
Using Bing as your search engine type in Mac and viruses and you
will have 75,800,000 results confirming what you are squawking
against
I'm not quite as ignorant as you perceive Peter. I *am* aware that
*any* computer /can/ be infected - it is a machine and thus
imperfect!
I doubt it. I think you really are that stupid, ignorance is curable,
yet you continue to do the same things you've been taken to task for
previously; so no, your not ignorant, your stupid.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
~BD~
2010-08-26 16:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
I'm not quite as ignorant as you perceive Peter. I *am* aware that
*any* computer /can/ be infected - it is a machine and thus
imperfect!
I doubt it. I think you really are that stupid, ignorance is curable,
yet you continue to do the same things you've been taken to task for
previously; so no, your not ignorant, your stupid.
Do you think *you* were stupid when you took on an industry
professional, Dustin? *He* is still employed and highly thought of!

Some might like to review your attitude towards others backalong:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.comp.virus/browse_thread/thread/c7242e555e7bf801/94dc2e122be06d18?lnk=gst&q=Graham+%2BRaid#94dc2e122be06d18

OR http://preview.tinyurl.com/33gppak

It's time for you to demonstrate that you really *have* changed! :)
--
Dave - sticking to the task of ruffling the feathers of bad guys!
Dustin
2010-08-26 18:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
I'm not quite as ignorant as you perceive Peter. I *am* aware that
*any* computer /can/ be infected - it is a machine and thus
imperfect!
I doubt it. I think you really are that stupid, ignorance is
curable, yet you continue to do the same things you've been taken
to task for previously; so no, your not ignorant, your stupid.
Do you think *you* were stupid when you took on an industry
professional, Dustin? *He* is still employed and highly thought of!
When I did what now? BD, you have no idea why I'm no longer with
malwarebytes; so you might as well just quit with the innuendo crap.
Cluley is highly thought of in the antivirus community; but not for
programming/coding or actual expertise of any sort, but for being quick
and witty with answering questions concerning Sophos antivirus
products. I'm amazed at what you consider to be a professional in an
industry. He doesn't write definitions, doesn't study malware/viruses
or anything of the sort; he's in the help department. Ho hum. Real
"professional." As for taking him on, lots of us had fun with cluley
back in the day. google the coconuts game virus if you doubt me.
Post by ~BD~
It's time for you to demonstrate that you really *have* changed! :)
That's piss easy. The last virus, was irok; it'll be turning 11 years
old in a few months. What have I done since irok? Developed and
maintained my own antimalware tool called BugHunter for 3 years, worked
for malwarebytes for 2 years; 5 years worth of fulltime dedicated
antimalware research. Here's a glowing review:

http://www.completelyfreesoftware.com/reviews/du_w31_BUGHUN.html

I know you'll love this part the best:
"BugHunter is a "must have" for all PC users."

You can thank me later. <G>

Time for you to be doing something more important than trying to find
old dirt on me. The more you try and irk me, the less likely I'll ever
help you do anything. In fact, I think I'll forward those emails you
sent me over to the site owners; they might like to know about you
trying to hire hackers to trespass on their equipment for you. That's
illegal in the states... is it in your country as well?
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
~BD~
2010-08-26 18:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
It's time for you to demonstrate that you really *have* changed! :)
That's piss easy. The last virus, was irok; it'll be turning 11 years
old in a few months. What have I done since irok? Developed and
maintained my own antimalware tool called BugHunter for 3 years, worked
for malwarebytes for 2 years; 5 years worth of fulltime dedicated
http://www.completelyfreesoftware.com/reviews/du_w31_BUGHUN.html
I'd have felt proud to have seen that written about me! :)
Post by Dustin
"BugHunter is a "must have" for all PC users."
You can thank me later.<G>
Time for you to be doing something more important than trying to find
old dirt on me.
I agree. I never wished to fight with you, Dustin.
Post by Dustin
The more you try and irk me, the less likely I'll ever
help you do anything.
You've previously said that you would *never* help me pinpoint those who
wish to cause us harm. I've never quite understood that.

In fact, I think I'll forward those emails you
Post by Dustin
sent me over to the site owners; they might like to know about you
trying to hire hackers to trespass on their equipment for you. That's
illegal in the states... is it in your country as well?
I emailed Gregory Gooden a number of times myself. It was his total
disinterest in telling his newsgroup members about the vastly changed
situation regarding Cybercrime and malware which first attracted my
attention.

Moving on .... (about *you*!)

QUOTE (Don Pelotas @ 23.11.2007 22:51) - Kaspersky Global Moderator

I'm sure he is doing his best and nothing wrong with that, but there is
no way one guy can bring out an effective updated everyday scanner
single-handedly today, the amount of malware makes this 100% impossible,
even Kaspersky with 7-10 analysts at work 24/7 doing nothing else is
finding it hard work to keep up adding signatures...................it's
pure maths.

What it might be somewhat useful for (I say might) is if it at any given
time is detecting some variant before any of the big vendors do, this is
certainly possible.............................is it worth the trouble
of scanning time after time finding nothing real?...not IMO. I'm not
trying to be as negative as possible, just shooting as straight as I
can................again IMHO. If you find it useful, it doesn't really
matter what I or anyone else thinks in the end.

By BD (Nov 2007)
*****

Thanks for your comments, Don. It is for the reasons you state that I
have purchased and am using KA7!

However ................. <g>

I have read that malware nowadays is capable of rendering a resident
Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware programme ineffective, whilst leaving the user
of a PC unaware of this fact. One of my reasons for selecting Kaspersky
was its reputedly excellent self-defence mechanism, hopefully enabling
KA7 to remain effective.

I've also read that malware can set up its own self-defence mechanism -
whereby it can protect itself from on-line scanners too - again giving a
user the false impression that his/her PC is 'clean' when, in fact, it
isn't.

If I have misunderstood matters, I'm eager and willing to learn!

My (possibly incorrect) understanding of how BugHunter works is that it
effectively 'shuts down' the Windows OS (used by malware?) and scans
one's hard disk in DOS mode, thereby remaining effective at pin-pointing
and, if required, cleaning known malware files from a PC. I fully accept
that it must be impossible for just one individual to keep his programme
100% current, but it seems totally logical that, over time, and with
dedication, the vast majority of 'nasties' could be added to BugHunter.

My strong suspicion is that millions of computers worldwide will have
been infected by relatively 'old' versions of malware and might well
benefit from a scan by BugHunter should their own resident
Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware programme have been rendered ineffective.

These a just my thoughts. I have no connection with the author of
BugHunter other than as stated earlier.

Dave

**

That came from this thread:

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=53351&hl=Bughunter

**

I've always wondered why you dropped your BugHunter project. I thought
you were doing *exactly* the right thing!

Maybe you will share the reason?
--
Dave
Dustin
2010-08-26 19:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
It's time for you to demonstrate that you really *have* changed!
:)
That's piss easy. The last virus, was irok; it'll be turning 11
years old in a few months. What have I done since irok? Developed
and maintained my own antimalware tool called BugHunter for 3
years, worked for malwarebytes for 2 years; 5 years worth of
http://www.completelyfreesoftware.com/reviews/du_w31_BUGHUN.html
I'd have felt proud to have seen that written about me! :)
I was. Still am. I spent alot of time on BugHunter.
Post by ~BD~
I agree. I never wished to fight with you, Dustin.
That's funny; your actions seem to indicate otherwise.
Post by ~BD~
You've previously said that you would *never* help me pinpoint those
who wish to cause us harm. I've never quite understood that.
I never said anything about pinpointing those who wish to cause "us"
harm. I said I wouldn't help you gain unauthorized access on various
services that you asked me for. I don't believe those sites are full of
bad guys as you seem to think.
Post by ~BD~
Moving on .... (about *you*!)
I'm sure he is doing his best and nothing wrong with that, but there
is no way one guy can bring out an effective updated everyday
scanner single-handedly today, the amount of malware makes this 100%
impossible, even Kaspersky with 7-10 analysts at work 24/7 doing
nothing else is finding it hard work to keep up adding
signatures...................it's pure maths.
Agreed. BugHunter was initially designed to help me at work; find the
nasties left over after everybody else took a look. After sometime, I
decided to share the program.
Post by ~BD~
My (possibly incorrect) understanding of how BugHunter works is that
it effectively 'shuts down' the Windows OS (used by malware?) and
scans one's hard disk in DOS mode, thereby remaining effective at
pin-pointing and, if required, cleaning known malware files from a
PC. I fully accept that it must be impossible for just one
individual to keep his programme 100% current, but it seems totally
logical that, over time, and with dedication, the vast majority of
'nasties' could be added to BugHunter.
BugHunters database could be updated to allow it to detect many of the
static nasties I've seen lately, but it's pointless for me to take the
time to do so.
Post by ~BD~
Maybe you will share the reason?
Lack of time. I've already explained that before. BugHunters engine and
that of malwarebytes are so different there was no way for me to be
able to add definitions to both of them for the same sample without
doubling the work load. As malwarebytes was a paying gig and BugHunter
wasn't, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which would get
dropped.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
~BD~
2010-08-26 19:58:51 UTC
Permalink
[....]
Post by ~BD~
I'd have felt proud to have seen that written about me! :)
I was. Still am. I spent a lot of time on BugHunter.
That's good to learn - time well spent IMO.

As you are well aware, I tied it. Your 'friend' Li (the Annexcafe
administrator) never reported back AFAIK with any results of testing her
system ..... and BugHunter was, AFAIK, *ever* promoted to members of
Annexcafe newsgroups to try.
Post by ~BD~
I agree. I never wished to fight with you, Dustin.
That's funny; your actions seem to indicate otherwise.
It must seem like that!
Post by ~BD~
You've previously said that you would *never* help me pinpoint those
who wish to cause us harm. I've never quite understood that.
I never said anything about pinpointing those who wish to cause "us"
harm. I said I wouldn't help you gain unauthorized access on various
services that you asked me for. I don't believe those sites are full of
bad guys as you seem to think.
Whilst you might not *believe* that there may be 'bad apples in the
barrel' - it does *not* mean that there aren't any!
Post by ~BD~
Moving on .... (about *you*!)
I'm sure he is doing his best and nothing wrong with that, but there
is no way one guy can bring out an effective updated everyday
scanner single-handedly today, the amount of malware makes this 100%
impossible, even Kaspersky with 7-10 analysts at work 24/7 doing
nothing else is finding it hard work to keep up adding
signatures...................it's pure maths.
Agreed. BugHunter was initially designed to help me at work; find the
nasties left over after everybody else took a look. After sometime, I
decided to share the program.
That was a really positive thing to do, IMO.
Post by ~BD~
My (possibly incorrect) understanding of how BugHunter works is that
it effectively 'shuts down' the Windows OS (used by malware?) and
scans one's hard disk in DOS mode, thereby remaining effective at
pin-pointing and, if required, cleaning known malware files from a
PC. I fully accept that it must be impossible for just one
individual to keep his programme 100% current, but it seems totally
logical that, over time, and with dedication, the vast majority of
'nasties' could be added to BugHunter.
BugHunters database could be updated to allow it to detect many of the
static nasties I've seen lately, but it's pointless for me to take the
time to do so.
If by doing so you could provide help to, maybe, tens of thousands of
people, wouldn't you feel a certain sense of satisfaction? Not
'pointless' at all!
Post by ~BD~
Maybe you will share the reason?
Lack of time. I've already explained that before. BugHunters engine and
that of malwarebytes are so different there was no way for me to be
able to add definitions to both of them for the same sample without
doubling the work load. As malwarebytes was a paying gig and BugHunter
wasn't, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which would get
dropped.
Yes, even 'stupid' Dave understands *that* Dustin!

But you are your own man now - if you determine that you wish to use
your skills *for the force of good*, I have no doubt at all that you
will receive the required help and support when it is needed! ;-)
--
Dave - I wonder what Peter Foldes' view is of BugHunter. He has never said.
Dustin
2010-08-26 18:20:19 UTC
Permalink
I wonder if anyone else would like to read our email correspondence; so
that they might have a more informed opinion of you and your actions.
It's not that of a noble soul.
Post by ~BD~
It's time for you to demonstrate that you really *have* changed! :)
I think I will provide our email correspondence, I grow tired of you
pretending to be a good guy who's out to expose me as a "bad" guy of
some sort. I suspect it's time our readers got to know the real you,
the cowardly BD who hides behind a keyboard and tries to play
detective. The cowardly BD who tries to hire outside help to break into
or otherwise, trespass on systems he doesn't own. I'm sure the guys at
annexcafe will be interested in reading your solicitations. You even
offered cash for my services.. You're not the good guy you claim to be,
your much worse than I was a decade ago.

I've got thousands of emails to pour thru, so you just keep digging
yourself a hole with old articles specifically posted to taunt or
otherwise annoy me, and i'll release our email correspondence for
everyone to see where I'm coming from and then they'll see why i don't
like you, don't trust you, and will not help you. They'll also see your
childish revenge for my refusal to help; as we're civil in the emails,
until I make you mad and refuse to help; then we're in usenet and
you've done nothing but try and belittle me since then. Even a child
will see what's going on.

None of those acts are that of a good guy.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
Peter Foldes
2010-08-26 18:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
I wonder if anyone else would like to read our email correspondence; so
that they might have a more informed opinion of you and your actions.
It's not that of a noble soul.
Post by ~BD~
It's time for you to demonstrate that you really *have* changed! :)
I think I will provide our email correspondence, I grow tired of you
pretending to be a good guy who's out to expose me as a "bad" guy of
some sort. I suspect it's time our readers got to know the real you,
the cowardly BD who hides behind a keyboard and tries to play
detective. The cowardly BD who tries to hire outside help to break into
or otherwise, trespass on systems he doesn't own. I'm sure the guys at
annexcafe will be interested in reading your solicitations. You even
offered cash for my services.. You're not the good guy you claim to be,
your much worse than I was a decade ago.
I've got thousands of emails to pour thru, so you just keep digging
yourself a hole with old articles specifically posted to taunt or
otherwise annoy me, and i'll release our email correspondence for
everyone to see where I'm coming from and then they'll see why i don't
like you, don't trust you, and will not help you. They'll also see your
childish revenge for my refusal to help; as we're civil in the emails,
until I make you mad and refuse to help; then we're in usenet and
you've done nothing but try and belittle me since then. Even a child
will see what's going on.
None of those acts are that of a good guy.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
Unnecessary Crosposting removed

Clap,clap ,clap +10
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
FromTheRafters
2010-08-25 18:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
http://www.apple.com/why-mac/better-os/#viruses
Where Apple states ............
"With virtually no effort on your part, Mac OS X defends
against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware.
[...]
Marketing crap.
[...]
Post by ~BD~
What - *exactly* - is it that you cannot understand?
Why time slows down in intense gravity *and* high velocity - both of
which apply to a body closely approaching a black hole.
...how is it *ever* going to get there (as if there were actually a
there, there in the first place)?
Post by ~BD~
Surely you aren't trying to tell me that the Apple web site is
telling readers lies, are you?
Why not? Their version of the truth seems incomplete to me. They seem
to think malware has to be something other than an application that
the user decided to execute, and that stolen computing power in a
sandbox is somehow of less value than stolen computing power outside a
sandbox.
Also, with this statement "And Mac OS X can use digital signatures to
verify that an application hasn’t been changed since it was created." it
seems that they are confusing change detection with authentication.

Anyway, it is obvious to many that "marketing crap" is a good label for
that commercial dressed up as a security document.
Aardvark
2010-08-26 22:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
BTW. It is apologizing and not apologising (learn to spell David)
Moron.

<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologise>
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
Dustin
2010-08-24 16:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
Not Updated but you get the idea on Macs and malware\virus and etc
http://www.vupen.com/english/searchengine.php
Is this your way of apologising for the mistake *you* made, Peter?
He didn't make one, in this case. Your mac isn't invincible or immune
from many of the same styles of malware that can affect a pc. it's not
always about the executables.

Peter was/is right, your a moron when it comes to technology.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
~BD~
2010-08-24 16:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
Not Updated but you get the idea on Macs and malware\virus and etc
http://www.vupen.com/english/searchengine.php
Is this your way of apologising for the mistake *you* made, Peter?
He didn't make one, in this case. Your mac isn't invincible or immune
from many of the same styles of malware that can affect a pc. it's not
always about the executables.
Peter was/is right, your a moron when it comes to technology.
I confess I'm still learning Dustin!

I am aware of a product called MacScan 2.7 but wonder if it is *really*
necessary.

Please explain why Malwarebytes does not have a product which deals with
malware on an Apple Mac if what you say is true.

Thanks

D.
Peter Foldes
2010-08-24 19:31:44 UTC
Permalink
David

Mac has a low chance of being infected because when you go (as an example) to a site
that has an infector then the infector in most of the cases is written for a PC. The
infector has to be written purposely for a Mac for the Mac to be infected. So,in
most and if not in all cases the PC is the one that is going to be infected. Since
PC is used by the majority ,the chance of a Mac being infected is slim but it can
and does happen.
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
Not Updated but you get the idea on Macs and malware\virus and etc
http://www.vupen.com/english/searchengine.php
Is this your way of apologising for the mistake *you* made, Peter?
He didn't make one, in this case. Your mac isn't invincible or immune
from many of the same styles of malware that can affect a pc. it's not
always about the executables.
Peter was/is right, your a moron when it comes to technology.
I confess I'm still learning Dustin!
I am aware of a product called MacScan 2.7 but wonder if it is *really* necessary.
Please explain why Malwarebytes does not have a product which deals with malware
on an Apple Mac if what you say is true.
Thanks
D.
~BD~
2010-08-24 22:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
David
Mac has a low chance of being infected because when you go (as an
example) to a site that has an infector then the infector in most of the
cases is written for a PC. The infector has to be written purposely for
a Mac for the Mac to be infected. So,in most and if not in all cases the
PC is the one that is going to be infected. Since PC is used by the
majority ,the chance of a Mac being infected is slim but it can and does
happen.
Hmmm! OK!

So .. oooooo - if *you* had a Mac, exactly how would *you* protect same
from the bad guys?
--
Dave - the avoidance of 'bad guys' was the reason for me getting my Mac
in the first place!
Peter Foldes
2010-08-24 23:47:37 UTC
Permalink
How I would avoid them? By having enough smarts and intelligence not to click on a
bad,infected link. When you develop that knowledge your chance of avoiding Bad Guys
as you put it will be cut to almost Zero
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
David
Mac has a low chance of being infected because when you go (as an
example) to a site that has an infector then the infector in most of the
cases is written for a PC. The infector has to be written purposely for
a Mac for the Mac to be infected. So,in most and if not in all cases the
PC is the one that is going to be infected. Since PC is used by the
majority ,the chance of a Mac being infected is slim but it can and does
happen.
Hmmm! OK!
So .. oooooo - if *you* had a Mac, exactly how would *you* protect same from the
bad guys?
--
Dave - the avoidance of 'bad guys' was the reason for me getting my Mac in the
first place!
~BD~
2010-08-25 08:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
How I would avoid them? By having enough smarts and intelligence not to
click on a bad,infected link. When you develop that knowledge your
chance of avoiding Bad Guys as you put it will be cut to almost Zero
It's difficult to believe that the PF writing this response (above) is
the same individual who wrote *this* .......

http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.test.here/msg/734ee90d8e75f20e?hl=en

Would you care to comment?

Dave

PS For those who do not like links .........



Path:
g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!195.238.0.231.MISMATCH!news.skynet.be!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: "Peter Foldes" <***@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.test.here
Subject: BD the Chicken
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:33:19 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <i4jipp$lfu$***@speranza.aioe.org>
Reply-To: "Peter Foldes" <***@bounce>
NNTP-Posting-Host: K8SxuGo4ih5oxCxkFUPidA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: ***@aioe.org
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.4657
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.4657
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

He David, I see that you are in your home today. When I was there you
moored your
friggin hippie painted shit of a boat and disappeared and just from
there but also
from your home. What the fuck is with you. Are you a chicken only with a
big mouth.
You were afraid to face me? No problem since I have an informant there
who is
telling me that you are at home in your house today.
You were posting using a different IP's just so that it seems that you
did not go
anywhere. But the problem is that you are too stupid to implement the IP
workings.
Again you are only a big mouth and a fucking smelly chicken shit and a
coward at
nature. The latter meaning you are not a man
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
FromTheRafters
2010-08-25 01:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
David
Mac has a low chance of being infected because when you go (as an
example) to a site that has an infector then the infector in most of the
cases is written for a PC. The infector has to be written purposely for
a Mac for the Mac to be infected. So,in most and if not in all cases the
PC is the one that is going to be infected. Since PC is used by the
majority ,the chance of a Mac being infected is slim but it can and does
happen.
Hmmm! OK!
So .. oooooo - if *you* had a Mac, exactly how would *you* protect
same from the bad guys?
Same way as a PC. Safe practices, and antivirus.
~BD~
2010-08-25 07:36:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by FromTheRafters
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
David
Mac has a low chance of being infected because when you go (as an
example) to a site that has an infector then the infector in most of
the cases is written for a PC. The infector has to be written purposely
for a Mac for the Mac to be infected. So,in most and if not in all cases
the PC is the one that is going to be infected. Since PC is used by the
majority ,the chance of a Mac being infected is slim but it can and does
happen.
Hmmm! OK!
So .. oooooo - if *you* had a Mac, exactly how would *you* protect
same from the bad guys?
Same way as a PC. Safe practices, and antivirus.
Thanks for your reply FTR

**

Which anti-virus software do *you* recommend for OS X ?

**

I am aware of MacScan 2.7 See: http://macscan.securemac.com/

Does anyone have any experience of the effectiveness of same?
--
Dave - there are not many AV's yet from which to choose!
Dustin
2010-08-26 15:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
Post by Peter Foldes
Not Updated but you get the idea on Macs and malware\virus and etc
http://www.vupen.com/english/searchengine.php
Is this your way of apologising for the mistake *you* made, Peter?
He didn't make one, in this case. Your mac isn't invincible or
immune from many of the same styles of malware that can affect a
pc. it's not always about the executables.
Peter was/is right, your a moron when it comes to technology.
I confess I'm still learning Dustin!
Your a jerk; unworthy of any serious help as you would clearly abuse
whatever you learned.
Post by ~BD~
Please explain why Malwarebytes does not have a product which deals
with malware on an Apple Mac if what you say is true.
I have nothing to do with malwarebytes; so I don't need to explain
anything about their product lines. If you want to know something about
that, you should ask them. Oh wait, heh, you can't can you... Something
about not complying with simple forum rules and losing your account? :)

That seems to happen alot to you.. I wonder why. /dripping with
sarcasm.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
Aardvark
2010-08-26 22:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
you are saying that Linux is now subject to malware infection
too.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
Aardvark
2010-08-26 22:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
I discovered that my Apple iMac
had been - um .....'adjusted' - so that I could not quit programmes such
as SeaMonkey and Thunderbird or, indeed, carry out a normal shutdown of
my machine.
Did nothing to mine.

Time you moved over to Linux.
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
Dustin
2010-08-27 00:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
I discovered that my Apple iMac
had been - um .....'adjusted' - so that I could not quit programmes
such as SeaMonkey and Thunderbird or, indeed, carry out a normal
shutdown of my machine.
Did nothing to mine.
Time you moved over to Linux.
I don't think he could handle the console man.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
Aardvark
2010-08-27 00:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
I discovered that my Apple iMac
had been - um .....'adjusted' - so that I could not quit programmes
such as SeaMonkey and Thunderbird or, indeed, carry out a normal
shutdown of my machine.
Did nothing to mine.
Time you moved over to Linux.
I don't think he could handle the console man.
LOL. I love it. BASH is so fucking powerful.
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
Dustin
2010-08-27 19:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aardvark
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
I discovered that my Apple iMac
had been - um .....'adjusted' - so that I could not quit
programmes
Post by Aardvark
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
such as SeaMonkey and Thunderbird or, indeed, carry out a normal
shutdown of my machine.
Did nothing to mine.
Time you moved over to Linux.
I don't think he could handle the console man.
LOL. I love it. BASH is so fucking powerful.
It's the shit! I have installed various command line utilities to
emulate some of the commands BASH has native. <G>
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
~BD~
2010-08-27 08:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
I discovered that my Apple iMac
had been - um .....'adjusted' - so that I could not quit programmes
such as SeaMonkey and Thunderbird or, indeed, carry out a normal
shutdown of my machine.
Did nothing to mine.
Time you moved over to Linux.
I don't think he could handle the console man.
You are right - but I *did* try!

Dave Eagle has had trouble with it too. Maybe it's an age thing! :)
Aardvark
2010-08-27 16:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
Time you moved over to Linux.
I don't think he could handle the console man.
You are right - but I *did* try!
Dave Eagle has had trouble with it too. Maybe it's an age thing!
Why? Doesn't bother me.
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
~BD~
2010-08-27 17:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
Time you moved over to Linux.
I don't think he could handle the console man.
You are right - but I *did* try!
Dave Eagle has had trouble with it too. Maybe it's an age thing!
Why? Doesn't bother me.
You'll have to ask *him*!

OK - I *do* realise what you meant. <grin>

I simply didn't spend the required time and effort to master something
new. Why? 'Cause I switched to OS X and I'm still trying to get to grips
with *that*!
Dustin
2010-08-27 19:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
I discovered that my Apple iMac
had been - um .....'adjusted' - so that I could not quit
programmes
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
such as SeaMonkey and Thunderbird or, indeed, carry out a normal
shutdown of my machine.
Did nothing to mine.
Time you moved over to Linux.
I don't think he could handle the console man.
You are right - but I *did* try!
Dave Eagle has had trouble with it too. Maybe it's an age thing! :)
It's not an age thing, My grandmother has no problem with the console
on an old linux box still running redhat 9. It's a lack of technical
comprehension if anything.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
~BD~
2010-08-27 20:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
I discovered that my Apple iMac
had been - um .....'adjusted' - so that I could not quit
programmes
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
such as SeaMonkey and Thunderbird or, indeed, carry out a normal
shutdown of my machine.
Did nothing to mine.
Time you moved over to Linux.
I don't think he could handle the console man.
You are right - but I *did* try!
Dave Eagle has had trouble with it too. Maybe it's an age thing! :)
It's not an age thing, My grandmother has no problem with the console
on an old linux box still running redhat 9. It's a lack of technical
comprehension if anything.
Your grandmother is probably younger than Dave Eagle! :)
Dustin
2010-08-27 20:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by ~BD~
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
I discovered that my Apple iMac
had been - um .....'adjusted' - so that I could not quit
programmes
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
Post by ~BD~
such as SeaMonkey and Thunderbird or, indeed, carry out a normal
shutdown of my machine.
Did nothing to mine.
Time you moved over to Linux.
I don't think he could handle the console man.
You are right - but I *did* try!
Dave Eagle has had trouble with it too. Maybe it's an age thing! :)
It's not an age thing, My grandmother has no problem with the
console
Post by ~BD~
Post by ~BD~
on an old linux box still running redhat 9. It's a lack of technical
comprehension if anything.
Your grandmother is probably younger than Dave Eagle! :)
My grandmother is 79 years old; with a bad ticker. Age has nothing to
do with it. Eagle is a ham rig operator, as well BD, so he should have
the technical mindset to run linux from console if he so desired; I
don't believe for a second you could.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
Aardvark
2010-08-26 22:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
One
http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/1481
Any more, fuckwit?

How many viruses could *my* system fall foul of?
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
Peter Foldes
2010-08-26 23:10:22 UTC
Permalink
Aardvark posted fearlessly
Post by Aardvark
How many viruses could *my* system fall foul of?
Ubuntu alone

http://www.vupen.com/english/searchengine.php

Or all of Linux

http://www.vupen.com/english/linux-advisories/2
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Aardvark
2010-08-27 00:26:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
Aardvark posted fearlessly
Post by Aardvark
How many viruses could *my* system fall foul of?
Ubuntu alone
http://www.vupen.com/english/searchengine.php
Or all of Linux
http://www.vupen.com/english/linux-advisories/2
And I'm going to allow some program with which I'm unfamiliar to become
executable *and* have root privileges?

You're fucking sto0pider than I thought you were.
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
~BD~
2010-08-27 08:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aardvark
Post by Peter Foldes
Aardvark posted fearlessly
Post by Aardvark
How many viruses could *my* system fall foul of?
Ubuntu alone
http://www.vupen.com/english/searchengine.php
Or all of Linux
http://www.vupen.com/english/linux-advisories/2
And I'm going to allow some program with which I'm unfamiliar to become
executable *and* have root privileges?
Please would you explain exactly what you mean by this Aardvark? Rather,
can you explain *how* you came to the conclusion that by following those
links you would grant root privileges.

I thought you'd said in another post that you had already followed the
links and that nothing untoward happened to your computer.

I've read here https://www.vupen.net/terms.php

VUPEN Security Services Terms and Conditions

I also noticed on the 'basic' link (remove 'terms.php) that it says ....

"System Requirements : Microsoft Internet Explorer or Mozilla with
JavaScript enabled."

I don't understand the significance of that (or why other browsers
should not be used).

Help/advice will be appreciated (as always! <smile>)
--
Dave
Dustin
2010-08-27 19:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Aardvark
Post by Peter Foldes
Aardvark posted fearlessly
Post by Aardvark
How many viruses could *my* system fall foul of?
Ubuntu alone
http://www.vupen.com/english/searchengine.php
Or all of Linux
http://www.vupen.com/english/linux-advisories/2
And I'm going to allow some program with which I'm unfamiliar to
become executable *and* have root privileges?
Please would you explain exactly what you mean by this Aardvark?
Rather, can you explain *how* you came to the conclusion that by
following those links you would grant root privileges.
St00pid fuck, He was being sarcastic. He wouldn't grant root privledges
to untrusted code; you moronic fucking shitstick.
Post by ~BD~
I thought you'd said in another post that you had already followed
the links and that nothing untoward happened to your computer.
Read what he wrote, you stupid fuck.
Post by ~BD~
"System Requirements : Microsoft Internet Explorer or Mozilla with
JavaScript enabled."
I don't understand the significance of that (or why other browsers
should not be used).
Not all browsers interpret html the same way. That isn't rocket
science, nor should you have to be of a technical nature to understand
that. Unless, your a moron.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
~BD~
2010-08-27 20:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
Post by Aardvark
Post by Peter Foldes
Aardvark posted fearlessly
Post by Aardvark
How many viruses could *my* system fall foul of?
Ubuntu alone
http://www.vupen.com/english/searchengine.php
Or all of Linux
http://www.vupen.com/english/linux-advisories/2
And I'm going to allow some program with which I'm unfamiliar to
become executable *and* have root privileges?
Please would you explain exactly what you mean by this Aardvark?
Rather, can you explain *how* you came to the conclusion that by
following those links you would grant root privileges.
St00pid fuck, He was being sarcastic. He wouldn't grant root privledges
to untrusted code; you moronic fucking shitstick.
Post by ~BD~
I thought you'd said in another post that you had already followed
the links and that nothing untoward happened to your computer.
Read what he wrote, you stupid fuck.
Post by ~BD~
"System Requirements : Microsoft Internet Explorer or Mozilla with
JavaScript enabled."
I don't understand the significance of that (or why other browsers
should not be used).
Not all browsers interpret html the same way. That isn't rocket
science, nor should you have to be of a technical nature to understand
that. Unless, your a moron.
Maybe someone with a better command of the English language will answer
my genuine queries.
Dustin
2010-08-27 20:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Dustin
Post by ~BD~
Post by Aardvark
Post by Peter Foldes
Aardvark posted fearlessly
Post by Aardvark
How many viruses could *my* system fall foul of?
Ubuntu alone
http://www.vupen.com/english/searchengine.php
Or all of Linux
http://www.vupen.com/english/linux-advisories/2
And I'm going to allow some program with which I'm unfamiliar to
become executable *and* have root privileges?
Please would you explain exactly what you mean by this Aardvark?
Rather, can you explain *how* you came to the conclusion that by
following those links you would grant root privileges.
St00pid fuck, He was being sarcastic. He wouldn't grant root
privledges to untrusted code; you moronic fucking shitstick.
Post by ~BD~
I thought you'd said in another post that you had already followed
the links and that nothing untoward happened to your computer.
Read what he wrote, you stupid fuck.
Post by ~BD~
"System Requirements : Microsoft Internet Explorer or Mozilla with
JavaScript enabled."
I don't understand the significance of that (or why other browsers
should not be used).
Not all browsers interpret html the same way. That isn't rocket
science, nor should you have to be of a technical nature to
understand that. Unless, your a moron.
Maybe someone with a better command of the English language will
answer my genuine queries.
HAHAHAHA. Your queries were answered and I don't think for a second you
didn't understand me. He didn't say he'd ever grant root privledges to
untrusted code, You went, twisted it all up, and asked him to clarify
how following links would grant root priviledges. Granted, you might
not like my choice of words to describe you; but they are still
accurate in the description and you are still very much a technological
bafoon.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
Peter Foldes
2010-08-27 21:36:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
HAHAHAHA. Your queries were answered and I don't think for a second you
didn't understand me. He didn't say he'd ever grant root privledges to
untrusted code, You went, twisted it all up, and asked him to clarify
how following links would grant root priviledges. Granted, you might
not like my choice of words to describe you; but they are still
accurate in the description and you are still very much a technological
bafoon.
And he was an air traffic controller. Believe that?
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Dustin
2010-08-27 00:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aardvark
Post by Peter Foldes
One
http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2010/1481
Any more, fuckwit?
With respect,

A linux box isn't immune to fuckwittery code. It does give many the false
sense of security by thinking it does tho. <G>
Post by Aardvark
How many viruses could *my* system fall foul of?
you should see google linux virus. A few did get wild at some point.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
Aardvark
2010-08-27 00:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
Post by Aardvark
How many viruses could *my* system fall foul of?
you should see google linux virus. A few did get wild at some point.
I know. The number of proof-of-concept viruses for Linux could probably
be counted on both of one's hands and still have fingers left over. It
would take some pretty hard work for someone to convince a Linux user to
first chmod a program to be executable, then give it root privileges.

I'm the only user on any of my Linux boxen with root privileges.
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
Mike Easter
2010-08-19 19:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Here is a screenshot of what I can see on my computer
http://i35.tinypic.com/280m4pf.jpg
That is a poor presentation of an ill-defined search.
Post by ~BD~
Can anyone else reproduce what I see in Google Groups?
Absolutely not. I wouldn't go about whatever it was that you went about
in the way you went about it.
Post by ~BD~
Has anyone an explanation regarding the two distinct versions of post
1001? I'm always intrigued by such anomalies!
- don't use .jpg to illustrate such a screenshot where the text is the
target; it is an inappropriate format. Use .jpg for such as photos for
which you need a lot of colors; a text containting screenshot like this
doesn't need a lot of colors and shouldn't be in such a lossy format.
.gif and others would be more appropriate and efficient with 'clearer' text.

- if you want to learn how to search GG, don't go about it with such
an oblique presentation of something that appears to be an anomaly of
message 1001 of some unknown undefined collection - rather 2 different
undefined collections.

For example, a GG (not .uk GG) search on the subject 'Is this really
your home' (no Dustin) in this specific group using GG advanced search
gives me nowhere near 1001 messages, more like 143. See below.

That is, my GG lives at groups.google.com not groups.google.co.uk

Your R pane search is (appears to be) for a different string than was
your left pane search, namely the Dustin term is missing in one.

Another bullet item - GG search tool is extremely flawed, in its basic
or advanced mode. It is only useful when it works for some task, and one
has to be prepared for alternate strategies when one GG search fails or
gives poor results.

Repeating my search in advanced GG specifying this a.p.s-e group and
using the 'full' string in the subject field 'Is this really your home,
Dustin' - GG gives me 73 *different* hits over several pages, some with
one post, one with 1001 posts, and so forth with the number of posts all
over the map and the date of the last post all over the map as well.

The one with 1001 posts has its last post Jun 22. Others have their last
post much more recently, such as yesterday. I get lots of results to
'choose' from, not just a correct one.

Why/How would I decide which of those to pick? The 1001 because it has a
lot or a smaller collection with a more recent latest? Suppose I pick
one with only 1 in its thread but whose last post was yesterday.

If I do that, I find that GG has only one message in that 'thread' but
the exam of the original message shows that it has a References line -
so then we determine that GG doesn't properly 'thread' - which is
something that we already knew - in addition to not properly searching,
which is something that we also already knew.

So the answer to your anomalous view is that if you use awkward search
techniques using a search tool that doesn't give accurate search results
in general and specifically doesn't give accurate message threading at
all, then you are going to get anomalous results.
--
Mike Easter
~BD~
2010-08-19 19:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
Post by ~BD~
Here is a screenshot of what I can see on my computer
http://i35.tinypic.com/280m4pf.jpg
That is a poor presentation of an ill-defined search.
Post by ~BD~
Can anyone else reproduce what I see in Google Groups?
Absolutely not. I wouldn't go about whatever it was that you went about
in the way you went about it.
You *always* do things in a different way! ;-)
Post by Mike Easter
Post by ~BD~
Has anyone an explanation regarding the two distinct versions of post
1001? I'm always intrigued by such anomalies!
- don't use .jpg to illustrate such a screenshot where the text is the
target; it is an inappropriate format. Use .jpg for such as photos for
which you need a lot of colors; a text containting screenshot like this
doesn't need a lot of colors and shouldn't be in such a lossy format.
.gif and others would be more appropriate and efficient with 'clearer' text.
I'm a bit stuck with this! My computer takes a screenshot and saves it
as a TIFF file (I don't think I can alter that). When I upload that file
to TinyPics that facility automatically saves same as a .jpeg file -
there is no choice given to me, the 'user'.
Post by Mike Easter
- if you want to learn how to search GG, don't go about it with such an
oblique presentation of something that appears to be an anomaly of
message 1001 of some unknown undefined collection - rather 2 different
undefined collections.
For example, a GG (not .uk GG) search on the subject 'Is this really
your home' (no Dustin) in this specific group using GG advanced search
gives me nowhere near 1001 messages, more like 143. See below.
That is, my GG lives at groups.google.com not groups.google.co.uk
I'll see if I can actually get *there*!
Post by Mike Easter
Your R pane search is (appears to be) for a different string than was
your left pane search, namely the Dustin term is missing in one.
Another bullet item - GG search tool is extremely flawed, in its basic
or advanced mode. It is only useful when it works for some task, and one
has to be prepared for alternate strategies when one GG search fails or
gives poor results.
Repeating my search in advanced GG specifying this a.p.s-e group and
using the 'full' string in the subject field 'Is this really your home,
Dustin' - GG gives me 73 *different* hits over several pages, some with
one post, one with 1001 posts, and so forth with the number of posts all
over the map and the date of the last post all over the map as well.
The one with 1001 posts has its last post Jun 22. Others have their last
post much more recently, such as yesterday. I get lots of results to
'choose' from, not just a correct one.
I do hope you can understand *why* I have been confused, Mike!
Post by Mike Easter
Why/How would I decide which of those to pick? The 1001 because it has a
lot or a smaller collection with a more recent latest? Suppose I pick
one with only 1 in its thread but whose last post was yesterday.
If I do that, I find that GG has only one message in that 'thread' but
the exam of the original message shows that it has a References line -
so then we determine that GG doesn't properly 'thread' - which is
something that we already knew - in addition to not properly searching,
which is something that we also already knew.
So the answer to your anomalous view is that if you use awkward search
techniques using a search tool that doesn't give accurate search results
in general and specifically doesn't give accurate message threading at
all, then you are going to get anomalous results.
I think that you are intimating that the anomalous results are not just
of my own making. In other words, Google hasn't got total control of the
information it presents to the user.

I'm wondering if I should report this phenomenon to Google. What do you
think?

Thanks for taking the trouble to look at this, Mike.
--
Dave
Mike Easter
2010-08-19 20:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Post by Mike Easter
- don't use .jpg to illustrate such a screenshot where the text is the
target; it is an inappropriate format. Use .jpg for such as photos for
which you need a lot of colors; a text containting screenshot like this
doesn't need a lot of colors and shouldn't be in such a lossy format.
.gif and others would be more appropriate and efficient with 'clearer' text.
I'm a bit stuck with this! My computer takes a screenshot and saves it
as a TIFF file (I don't think I can alter that). When I upload that file
to TinyPics that facility automatically saves same as a .jpeg file -
there is no choice given to me, the 'user'.
Your Mac must have all kinds of graphics ware available for it - macs
take great pride in their graphics handling.

You are submitting an unacceptable format to tinypic and you are
probably submitting it in too fat a condition - filesize. Before you
submit to tinypic, you need to do your own conversion to an acceptable
format and size.

Here are the tinypic rules:

# Image files cannot be larger than 1600 pixels (either width or
height). Images that are too large are resized to the largest acceptable
size.

# Acceptable Images types are: jpg, png, gif, base 64 encoded image, or
bmp.

I would probably use .gif in some low number of colors; it could even be
grayscale. Alternatively .png.

When tinypic is (auto) resizing your image, it is converting it to .jpg
because that is more efficient - but .jpg is a lossy format, so in their
effort to make your pic conform to their rules, they are screwing it up.
They probably consider that conversion screwing to be a better
alternative than just rejecting your pic because it is noncompliant.

You should 'fix' your pic into the best and also acceptable condition of
format and filesize compliance before you upload it to tinypic or else
they will 'fix'/compliant it for you and their fixing is going to be
automated, not based on the best format for the type of graphic you have
submitted in the wrong condition.
Post by ~BD~
Post by Mike Easter
That is, my GG lives at groups.google.com not groups.google.co.uk
I'll see if I can actually get *there*!
That would be a waste of energy. That isn't the big problem.
Post by ~BD~
I'm wondering if I should report this phenomenon to Google. What do you
think?
I think that google isn't interested in spending money or resources on a
function that doesn't add to their bottom line. They have a
responsibility to their shareholders.
--
Mike Easter
Mike Easter
2010-08-19 20:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
I'm a bit stuck with this! My computer takes a screenshot and saves it
as a TIFF file (I don't think I can alter that). When I upload that file
to TinyPics that facility automatically saves same as a .jpeg file -
there is no choice given to me, the 'user'.
Your mac is OS 10.6 Snow Leopard which I tho't produced a screenshot in
the .png format by default, since 10.4 - the guide below is last
modified 2010 Jun 2.

Also, since 10.4 including 10.6, you can change the default format with
your terminal using this 'generic' command

defaults write com.apple.screencapture type image_format

... and make the generic 'image_format' string be 'png' (no quotes)

This is explained in the MacRumor Guide
http://guides.macrumors.com/Taking_Screenshots_in_Mac_OS_X Taking
Screenshots in Mac OS X

.. and enhanced in http://snipr.com/10q75u How Do I Change My Screenshot
Format and Saved Location?

The latter shows how to make the change with a graphical interface
instead of the commmandline, the former shows how to make the change
with an additional command so that you don't have to log out/in to get
the change to take effect with the command killall SystemUIServer

Depending on what I was doing with my screenshots most of the time, my
choice definitely would not be tiff, which is very useful for some
things. I do a lot of screenshots of things which would do much better
(much more efficient) in .png than .tiff.

The graphical option screenshot in the myfirstmac illustrations shows a
lot more choices than were described in the macrumors.
--
Mike Easter
~BD~
2010-08-19 22:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Easter
Post by ~BD~
I'm a bit stuck with this! My computer takes a screenshot and saves it
as a TIFF file (I don't think I can alter that). When I upload that
file to TinyPics that facility automatically saves same as a .jpeg
file - there is no choice given to me, the 'user'.
Your mac is OS 10.6 Snow Leopard which I tho't produced a screenshot in
the .png format by default, since 10.4 - the guide below is last
modified 2010 Jun 2.
Also, since 10.4 including 10.6, you can change the default format with
your terminal using this 'generic' command
defaults write com.apple.screencapture type image_format
... and make the generic 'image_format' string be 'png' (no quotes)
This is explained in the MacRumor Guide
http://guides.macrumors.com/Taking_Screenshots_in_Mac_OS_X Taking
Screenshots in Mac OS X
.. and enhanced in http://snipr.com/10q75u How Do I Change My Screenshot
Format and Saved Location?
The latter shows how to make the change with a graphical interface
instead of the commmandline, the former shows how to make the change
with an additional command so that you don't have to log out/in to get
the change to take effect with the command killall SystemUIServer
Depending on what I was doing with my screenshots most of the time, my
choice definitely would not be tiff, which is very useful for some
things. I do a lot of screenshots of things which would do much better
(much more efficient) in .png than .tiff.
The graphical option screenshot in the myfirstmac illustrations shows a
lot more choices than were described in the macrumors.
Thanks for your posts, Mike.

I'll explore carefully tomorrow when I'm more alert!

Take care! :)
Eagle
2010-08-24 02:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~BD~
Here is a screenshot of what I can see on my computer
http://i35.tinypic.com/280m4pf.jpg
Can anyone else reproduce what I see in Google Groups?
(It was exactly like this in our local library too!)
Has anyone an explanation regarding the two distinct versions of post 1001?
I'm always intrigued by such anomalies!
What are all those icons across the bottom?
Peter Foldes
2010-08-24 03:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eagle
What are all those icons across the bottom?
Eagle

It is a snapshot of his Macintosh Desktop. Those Icons are there by default on the
Mac.
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Eagle" <***@killra.yum> wrote in message news:i4vbdn$tuq$***@news.eternal-september.org...
~BD~
2010-08-24 11:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Foldes
Post by Eagle
What are all those icons across the bottom?
Eagle
It is a snapshot of his Macintosh Desktop. Those Icons are there by
default on the Mac.
FAR CANAL! Progress in posting style!

*AND* - PF is telling the truth for a change!

Whilst they are (the icons) indeed visible by default at the bottom of
the screen, the 'Dock' - as it is called - may be positioned elsewhere
on the screen; you can move it to the right or left side if you prefer.

Take a look here Dave Eagle: http://www.apple.com/why-mac/

It should make your mouth water! ;-)
--
Dave
Aardvark
2010-08-26 22:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eagle
Post by ~BD~
Here is a screenshot of what I can see on my computer
http://i35.tinypic.com/280m4pf.jpg
Can anyone else reproduce what I see in Google Groups?
(It was exactly like this in our local library too!)
Has anyone an explanation regarding the two distinct versions of post
1001? I'm always intrigued by such anomalies!
What are all those icons across the bottom?
Mac taskbar, mate. It's called 'Cairo Dock'. Available for Linux too.
--
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle.
Then I realised God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and
prayed for forgiveness." - Emo Phillips
Anne Onime
2010-08-27 07:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dustin
Cluley is highly thought of in the antivirus community; but not for
programming/coding or actual expertise of any sort, but for being quick
and witty with answering questions concerning Sophos antivirus
products.
And for being a fat flabby dougnut gobbling fuck.
Dustin
2010-08-27 19:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anne Onime
Post by Dustin
Cluley is highly thought of in the antivirus community; but not for
programming/coding or actual expertise of any sort, but for being
quick and witty with answering questions concerning Sophos
antivirus products.
And for being a fat flabby dougnut gobbling fuck.
HAH! Yes, that too.
--
"I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike
your Christ." - author unknown.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...