• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

WIN 7

  • Thread starter no_one@no_where.invalid
  • Start date
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Death wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Jackie wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2010 12:36, Alias wrote:
>>>>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up
>>>>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like
>>>>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even
>>>>> sounds logical or not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.
>>>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to
>>>> prove to you what they say is true?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, this is getting a bit ridiculous.
>>> Facts are either true or false. I have said my part on why I believe
>>> what I believe. I don't feel that you have contributed much.
>>> If you feel that I am wrong, please enlighten me. If you don't want to
>>> bother convincing me and other people on why we are wrong, I suggest we
>>> stop talking about this because the conversation is already starting to
>>> become meaningless.
>>> If you have read my previous posts, does it really sound like I need to
>>> "do my own research"? What part of what you *you* say sounds even
>>> slightly convincing?
>>> You can believe whatever you want to believe, but if you do not have any
>>> intention on enlightening us, let's end this conversation right now.
>>
>> Regardless of any proof I may give, you and John won't believe me anyway
>> so what's the point?
>>
>
> There is no point in any conversation you participate in.
> It's just Windows bashing, ubuntushitsthebed promoting, plain and
> simple.
>
>> If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is
>> much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm
>> not into futile endeavors.
>>
>
> The "countdown to nothing" is a futile endeavor, dumbass.
>

Yawn. I didn't know you were so jealous of me. Oh well, the price of fame.

--
Alias
 
D

Death

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:

> Death wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.
>>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to
>>> prove to you what they say is true?
>>>
>>
>> You're a Windows user, dumbass.
>
> So are you. I have stated many times that I use both. So fucking what?
>

Read your previous remark...the one I replied to.
You said "you Windows users" ... are you daft?

>>
>> Tell them how you make $14,000 /week.
>> That will give you at least a little credibility.
>>
>> That ubuntu is based on gnome was hilarious.
>
> You really are desperate to find *something* to put me down with, why is
> that? Is it because you're an asshole or are you jealous?
>

Yes...I'm jealous of your gnome based ubuntard installation.

Fedora must be based on KDE...since I use KDE as my DE.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Death wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Death wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>> SNIP
>>>
>>>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.
>>>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to
>>>> prove to you what they say is true?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're a Windows user, dumbass.
>>
>> So are you. I have stated many times that I use both. So fucking what?
>>
>
> Read your previous remark...the one I replied to.
> You said "you Windows users" ... are you daft?

You knew what I meant but you're desperate to put me down anyway you
can. Why is the question.

>
>>>
>>> Tell them how you make $14,000 /week.
>>> That will give you at least a little credibility.
>>>
>>> That ubuntu is based on gnome was hilarious.
>>
>> You really are desperate to find *something* to put me down with, why is
>> that? Is it because you're an asshole or are you jealous?
>>
>
> Yes...I'm jealous of your gnome based ubuntard installation.

Gosh, I made a mistake. What do you suggest, a lynching for those who
make mistakes here or what?

>
> Fedora must be based on KDE...since I use KDE as my DE.
>

Another who thinks he's perfect. It must be lonely being you.

--
Alias
 
D

Death

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:

> Death wrote:

SNIP

>>
>> The "countdown to nothing" is a futile endeavor, dumbass.
>>
>
> Yawn. I didn't know you were so *amused by* me. Oh well, the price of *stupidity*.
>

Corrected in place

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Death wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Death wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>>>
>>> The "countdown to nothing" is a futile endeavor, dumbass.
>>>
>>
>> Yawn. I didn't know you were so *amused by* me. Oh well, the price of *stupidity*.
>>
>
> Corrected in place
>

Was that supposed to be cute and clever, Mr Perfect?

--
Alias
 
D

Death

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:

> Death wrote:

SNIP

>>>> You're a Windows user, dumbass.
>>>
>>> So are you. I have stated many times that I use both. So fucking what?
>>>
>>
>> Read your previous remark...the one I replied to.
>> You said "you Windows users" ... are you daft?
>
> You knew what I meant but you're desperate to put me down anyway you
> can. Why is the question.
>

I rarely know what you "meant".
Only your psychiatrist knows for sure.

>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell them how you make $14,000 /week.
>>>> That will give you at least a little credibility.
>>>>
>>>> That ubuntu is based on gnome was hilarious.
>>>
>>> You really are desperate to find *something* to put me down with, why is
>>> that? Is it because you're an asshole or are you jealous?
>>>
>>
>> Yes...I'm jealous of your gnome based ubuntard installation.
>
> Gosh, I made a mistake. What do you suggest, a lynching for those who
> make mistakes here or what?
>

No, I just suspect you are as incorrect with your assertions and claims
made against Windows.

>>
>> Fedora must be based on KDE...since I use KDE as my DE.
>>
>
> Another who thinks he's perfect. It must be lonely being you.
>

Nope...stop projecting your life into mine.
Most of my friends couldn't care less about linux.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.
 
D

Death

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:

> Death wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Death wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>>>>
>>>> The "countdown to nothing" is a futile endeavor, dumbass.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yawn. I didn't know you were so *amused by* me. Oh well, the price of *stupidity*.
>>>
>>
>> Corrected in place
>>
>
> Was that supposed to be cute and clever, Mr Perfect?
>

Just clever.
Death ain't cute.
He's handsome and not an ubuntard.
+2 for Death.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Death wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Death wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>>>>> You're a Windows user, dumbass.
>>>>
>>>> So are you. I have stated many times that I use both. So fucking what?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Read your previous remark...the one I replied to.
>>> You said "you Windows users" ... are you daft?
>>
>> You knew what I meant but you're desperate to put me down anyway you
>> can. Why is the question.
>>
>
> I rarely know what you "meant".
> Only your psychiatrist knows for sure.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell them how you make $14,000 /week.
>>>>> That will give you at least a little credibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> That ubuntu is based on gnome was hilarious.
>>>>
>>>> You really are desperate to find *something* to put me down with, why is
>>>> that? Is it because you're an asshole or are you jealous?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes...I'm jealous of your gnome based ubuntard installation.
>>
>> Gosh, I made a mistake. What do you suggest, a lynching for those who
>> make mistakes here or what?
>>
>
> No, I just suspect you are as incorrect with your assertions and claims
> made against Windows.
>
>>>
>>> Fedora must be based on KDE...since I use KDE as my DE.
>>>
>>
>> Another who thinks he's perfect. It must be lonely being you.
>>
>
> Nope...stop projecting your life into mine.
> Most of my friends couldn't care less about linux.
>

All two of them, eh?

--
Alias
 
J

Jackie

Flightless Bird
On 5/14/2010 13:13, Alias wrote:
> If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is
> much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm
> not into futile endeavors.
>

That is a very general statement compared to ones you have previously
given. For example, you gave a statements such as "If you click on an ad
laced with malware, you're giving it permission to run" and "there is
malware that has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware
apps and UAC". If you didn't see my response to this, please do that.

Now, to answer your general statement...
For malicious apps to cause any damage to the system, it must be
elevated. I have already responded about the link you gave about
bypassing AV software
(http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html).

In pre-release versions of Windows 7, it was possible for a malicious
application to take advantage of the automatic elevation option in
Windows 7. I do not know if this was fixed in the final version.
http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/0...n-mistake-lets-malware-elevate-freely-easily/
This feature is not present in Ubuntu, and you *can* turn it off in
Windows 7. That means it can no longer be taken advantage of.

Of course, a malicious app could mess up your personal files that you
always have full access to, but that applies for Linux as well.

Ubuntu has AppArmor installed by default. This is a an access control
system developed by Novell.
You can read more about it here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppArmor

Unfortunately, Windows does not have that installed by default, but you
can get similar solutions. I said earlier that I used Outpost Firewall
Pro 2009 that has a "Host protection" feature that provides a pretty
good amount of access control (like I mentioned in an earlier post). I
also use Sandboxie to run certain applications with limited resources.
http://www.sandboxie.com/

Such solutions giving such great amount of control are not already
pre-installed and/or very well integrated with Windows.
Considering that a similar solution is pre-installed in Ubuntu and does
not cost anything, I would say that it is indeed unfortunate for Windows.
 
D

Death

Flightless Bird
Alias wrote:

> Death wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Death wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>>

SNIP since dumbass can't

>>> Another who thinks he's perfect. It must be lonely being you.
>>>
>>
>> Nope...stop projecting your life into mine.
>> Most of my friends couldn't care less about linux.
>>
>
> All two of them, eh?
>

Yes...I have 2 friends.
They both borrow money,tools,time...needy bastards they are.
Death is fixin to have no friends.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.
 
J

John B. Slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:34:58 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

>John B. Slocomb wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:07:43 +0200, Jackie<Jackie@an.on> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2010 14:48, Alias wrote:
>>>> Nor do I. I use both Windows and Linux.
>>> Do you have anything to say about the other things I said? You quoted
>>> everything in my post.
>>
>>
>> Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported
>> slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with
>> quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with
>> irrelevancies.
>>
>> Given that Alias seems to know very little about computers, witness
>> his assertion that the Windows kernel is the Registry and that a
>> certain compilation of Linux is a version based on the desktop
>> environment, it seems likely that he is one of these "instant
>> experts", that finally learned enough to turn the computer on and off
>> and now portrays himself as the all knowing pundit.
>>
>>
>> John B. Slocomb
>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>
>Wrong, I have *never* claimed to be a computer expert.


You really, really, need to take some remedial reading classes as you
are either unable to understand simple English, or perhaps you don't
want to believe that you are wrong, yet again..

In any event, the term I used in reference to you was "instant
expert", used as a form of ridicule for those who, with little or no
knowledge, run about telling everyone how to do their job. Or in your
case what the best computer system is.

The Indians had a folk story about a rat that found a lump of turmeric
and started a provisions shop.

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
J

John B. Slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:36:07 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

>Jackie wrote:
>> On 5/14/2010 03:06, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>> Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported
>>> slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with
>>> quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with
>>> irrelevancies.
>>>
>>
>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up
>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like
>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even
>> sounds logical or not.
>>
>
>OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.
>What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to
>prove to you what they say is true?

I suppose because most of us prefer not to be lied to. If you
don't/can't prove it how do we know that you aren't deliberately
lying? And after you display your ignorance of computers a few times
it is very difficult to accept that you know anything at all. Another
reason is because many people are naturally polite and dislike saying
"You are a liar" so instead that say something like "can you prove
it?"

And I don't believe that it is confined to Windows users, I doubt that
many actually like to be lied to.

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
J

John B. Slocomb

Flightless Bird
On Fri, 14 May 2010 13:13:29 +0200, Alias
<aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:

>Jackie wrote:
>> On 5/14/2010 12:36, Alias wrote:
>>>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up
>>>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like
>>>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even
>>>> sounds logical or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.
>>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to
>>> prove to you what they say is true?
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, this is getting a bit ridiculous.
>> Facts are either true or false. I have said my part on why I believe
>> what I believe. I don't feel that you have contributed much.
>> If you feel that I am wrong, please enlighten me. If you don't want to
>> bother convincing me and other people on why we are wrong, I suggest we
>> stop talking about this because the conversation is already starting to
>> become meaningless.
>> If you have read my previous posts, does it really sound like I need to
>> "do my own research"? What part of what you *you* say sounds even
>> slightly convincing?
>> You can believe whatever you want to believe, but if you do not have any
>> intention on enlightening us, let's end this conversation right now.
>
>Regardless of any proof I may give, you and John won't believe me anyway
>so what's the point?
>
>If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is
>much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm
>not into futile endeavors.


Yes if you actually demonstrated the truth of anything I'd accept what
you said however you have yet to demonstrate a truth.

You allege that Windows is more susceptible to malware then Linux but
other then your say so why should we believe you?

It is for a very good reason that "hearsay" is not accepted as
evidence in a court of law. Why? It is too easy to prevaricate. A
charge that has been leveled against you many times.

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
 
M

Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps)

Flightless Bird
>> And running softwares developped [sic] for Windows.
> Yeah, like malware.

No.. DirectX 3D games and HDTV viewer! :)

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.33.3
^ ^ 20:55:01 up 9 days 4:37 2 users load average: 1.17 1.07 1.04
ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
 
M

Man-wai Chang to The Door (33600bps)

Flightless Bird
> Yeah, it's not nearly as good as Windows is in running viruses, root
> kits, trojans and other malware.

NO... DirectX games and HDTV viewer!

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.33.3
^ ^ 20:56:01 up 9 days 4:38 2 users load average: 1.06 1.06 1.03
ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
Jackie wrote:
> On 5/14/2010 13:13, Alias wrote:
>> If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is
>> much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm
>> not into futile endeavors.
>>
>
> That is a very general statement compared to ones you have previously
> given. For example, you gave a statements such as "If you click on an ad
> laced with malware, you're giving it permission to run" and "there is
> malware that has developed the ability to fool ALL anti virus/malware
> apps and UAC". If you didn't see my response to this, please do that.
>
> Now, to answer your general statement...
> For malicious apps to cause any damage to the system, it must be
> elevated. I have already responded about the link you gave about
> bypassing AV software
> (http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-attack-bypasses-anti-virus-software-997621.html).
>
>
> In pre-release versions of Windows 7, it was possible for a malicious
> application to take advantage of the automatic elevation option in
> Windows 7. I do not know if this was fixed in the final version.
> http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/0...n-mistake-lets-malware-elevate-freely-easily/
>
> This feature is not present in Ubuntu, and you *can* turn it off in
> Windows 7. That means it can no longer be taken advantage of.
>
> Of course, a malicious app could mess up your personal files that you
> always have full access to, but that applies for Linux as well.
>
> Ubuntu has AppArmor installed by default. This is a an access control
> system developed by Novell.
> You can read more about it here:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppArmor
>
> Unfortunately, Windows does not have that installed by default, but you
> can get similar solutions. I said earlier that I used Outpost Firewall
> Pro 2009 that has a "Host protection" feature that provides a pretty
> good amount of access control (like I mentioned in an earlier post). I
> also use Sandboxie to run certain applications with limited resources.
> http://www.sandboxie.com/
>
> Such solutions giving such great amount of control are not already
> pre-installed and/or very well integrated with Windows.
> Considering that a similar solution is pre-installed in Ubuntu and does
> not cost anything, I would say that it is indeed unfortunate for Windows.

Most people who use Windows don't update hardly anything. Techies can
secure a Windows install but, like you said, with Ubuntu, it's installed
securely by default.

--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 13:13:29 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> Jackie wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2010 12:36, Alias wrote:
>>>>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up
>>>>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like
>>>>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even
>>>>> sounds logical or not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.
>>>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to
>>>> prove to you what they say is true?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, this is getting a bit ridiculous.
>>> Facts are either true or false. I have said my part on why I believe
>>> what I believe. I don't feel that you have contributed much.
>>> If you feel that I am wrong, please enlighten me. If you don't want to
>>> bother convincing me and other people on why we are wrong, I suggest we
>>> stop talking about this because the conversation is already starting to
>>> become meaningless.
>>> If you have read my previous posts, does it really sound like I need to
>>> "do my own research"? What part of what you *you* say sounds even
>>> slightly convincing?
>>> You can believe whatever you want to believe, but if you do not have any
>>> intention on enlightening us, let's end this conversation right now.
>>
>> Regardless of any proof I may give, you and John won't believe me anyway
>> so what's the point?
>>
>> If I have to prove that Windows is vulnerable to malware and Linux is
>> much more secure to you guys, then doing so is a futile endeavor and I'm
>> not into futile endeavors.
>
>
> Yes if you actually demonstrated the truth of anything I'd accept what
> you said however you have yet to demonstrate a truth.
>
> You allege that Windows is more susceptible to malware then Linux but
> other then your say so why should we believe you?
>
> It is for a very good reason that "hearsay" is not accepted as
> evidence in a court of law. Why? It is too easy to prevaricate. A
> charge that has been leveled against you many times.
>
> John B. Slocomb
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Yawn.

--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:36:07 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> Jackie wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2010 03:06, John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>>> Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported
>>>> slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with
>>>> quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with
>>>> irrelevancies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would be nice if he could actually try to back anything he says up
>>> even he doesn't have any reliable references, because it really is like
>>> you say. Technical details would be good so that we can see if it even
>>> sounds logical or not.
>>>
>>
>> OR, you could do your own research and see if what I am saying is true.
>> What is it about you Windows users that makes you think everyone has to
>> prove to you what they say is true?
>
> I suppose because most of us prefer not to be lied to. If you
> don't/can't prove it how do we know that you aren't deliberately
> lying? And after you display your ignorance of computers a few times
> it is very difficult to accept that you know anything at all. Another
> reason is because many people are naturally polite and dislike saying
> "You are a liar" so instead that say something like "can you prove
> it?"
>
> And I don't believe that it is confined to Windows users, I doubt that
> many actually like to be lied to.
>
> John B. Slocomb
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Double yawn.

--
Alias
 
A

Alias

Flightless Bird
John B. Slocomb wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 12:34:58 +0200, Alias
> <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote:
>
>> John B. Slocomb wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 May 2010 15:07:43 +0200, Jackie<Jackie@an.on> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2010 14:48, Alias wrote:
>>>>> Nor do I. I use both Windows and Linux.
>>>> Do you have anything to say about the other things I said? You quoted
>>>> everything in my post.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah Jackie, you are learning about Alias. He posts some unsupported
>>> slander about Windows and when someone rebuts his post complete with
>>> quotes and references to demonstrate validity he replies with
>>> irrelevancies.
>>>
>>> Given that Alias seems to know very little about computers, witness
>>> his assertion that the Windows kernel is the Registry and that a
>>> certain compilation of Linux is a version based on the desktop
>>> environment, it seems likely that he is one of these "instant
>>> experts", that finally learned enough to turn the computer on and off
>>> and now portrays himself as the all knowing pundit.
>>>
>>>
>>> John B. Slocomb
>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)
>>
>> Wrong, I have *never* claimed to be a computer expert.
>
>
> You really, really, need to take some remedial reading classes as you
> are either unable to understand simple English, or perhaps you don't
> want to believe that you are wrong, yet again..
>
> In any event, the term I used in reference to you was "instant
> expert", used as a form of ridicule for those who, with little or no
> knowledge, run about telling everyone how to do their job. Or in your
> case what the best computer system is.
>
> The Indians had a folk story about a rat that found a lump of turmeric
> and started a provisions shop.
>
> John B. Slocomb
> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

Triple yawn.

--
Alias
 
H

Heywood Jablowme

Flightless Bird
"Alias" <aka@maskedandanymous.org.invalido> wrote in message
news:hsj8v2$in0$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> And the reason you think I care is?
>
> --
> Alias

Nobody cares what you think. You post ill informed opinions all the time.
That is why I need to correct your statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top