IE 6,7,8
Peter Foldes
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/2458511.mspx
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
AJRS
> All versions of IE affected. This Security Released was published today
> Nov 3
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/2458511.mspx
>
Very interesting information but I'm unclear why you posted it here.
I happened across a post recently which stated .......
"I am still using IE6 and I have no interest in going to IE 7, 8, or 9.
Mine is hardened to the max and plus and I am extremely happy with it.
Besides I am not able to do what I need to with any of the newer
versions. They (MS) took out all the codes from the newer ones that is
needed for my work"
IE6
<q/p>
This version of Internet Explorer is widely derided for its security
issues and lack of support for modern web standards, making frequent
appearances in "worst tech products of all time" lists, with some
publications labeling it as the "least secure software on the planet."
<p>
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_6
Can you, or anyone else, suggest what type of work might require the use
of a browser with so many flaws?
WHY could another, safer, browser not be used for such work?
TIA
David H. Lipman
| Peter Foldes wrote:
>> All versions of IE affected. This Security Released was published today
>> Nov 3
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/2458511.mspx
| Very interesting information but I'm unclear why you posted it here.
< snip >
Because of its vulnerability/exploitation vector factor.
--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
AJRS
> From: "AJRS"<AJ...@nospam.invalid>
>
> | Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> All versions of IE affected. This Security Released was published today
>>> Nov 3
>
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/2458511.mspx
>
>
> | Very interesting information but I'm unclear why you posted it here.
>
> < snip>
>
> Because of its vulnerability/exploitation vector factor.
>
Of course.
What type of work might require the use of a browser with so many flaws?
WHY couldn't another, safer, browser be used for such work?
Peter Foldes
BD (David Brooks) using another posting name
You are using another posting name yet again. You are a Troll and an all around
idiot
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
"AJRS" <AJ...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:ib38a8$noo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
BoaterDave
....... failed to answer a straight-forward question, which was:-
What type of work might require the use of a browser with so many
flaws?
WHY couldn't another, safer, browser be used for such work?
Surely, if anyone would know the answer, it's you Mr Foldes! :)
Please share.
BD
Mike Easter
> What type of work might require the use of a browser with so many
> flaws?
This is not a useful question, because it is based on the 'inner'
thoughts and unknown configuration or requirements of this cited person
> "I am still using IE6 and I have no interest in going to IE 7, 8, or
> 9. Mine is hardened to the max and plus and I am extremely happy with
> it. Besides I am not able to do what I need to with any of the newer
> versions. They (MS) took out all the codes from the newer ones that
> is needed for my work"
You can consider this snip from the wiki, which article you have already
cited, so you must be familiar
> IE6 remained more popular than its successor in business use for more
> than a year after IE7 came out.[19] A DailyTech article noted, "A
> Survey found 55.2% of companies still use IE 6 as of December 2007",
> while "IE 7 only has a 23.4 percent adoption rate".[19] - Net
> Applications estimated IE6 market share at almost 39% for September,
> 2008.[20] According to the same source, IE7 users migrate faster to
> IE8 than users of its predecessor IE6 does. This led to IE6 once
> again becoming the most widely used browser version. During the
> summer and fall of 2009, 8 years after its introduction, IE6 still
> held the top spot in terms of browser marketshare.[21]
Consequently, one can assume that many web interfaces may have been more
compatible with IE6 than IE7 and (still) compatible with IE6 and not
other browsers - causing the person who we can't 'fault' or question
because they aren't here - to find his other options unsatisfactory.
Then, when IE8 came out, it was initially less compatible (with those
older cites) than IE7, causing a 'hardening' of his opinions and conviction.
In my opinion -1- if used very carefully, one could use IE6, but it is
dangerous -2- if used judiciously, one can use Fx almost any place you
need to especially as more and more sites became compatible as Fx gained
share -3- by this late date, the same sites which the unknown target IE6
user couldn't use anything else, can now accommodate all kinds of IE and
other browsers, so the original premise is almost entirely gone.
... which is what makes your question not useful and thus a waste of time.
--
Mike Easter
David H. Lipman
| BoaterDave wrote:
>> What type of work might require the use of a browser with so many
>> flaws?
| This is not a useful question, because it is based on the 'inner'
| thoughts and unknown configuration or requirements of this cited person
Like compatibility issues.
My org. bars the use of IE8 due to compatibility and compliance issues.
Mike Easter
> "Mike Easter"
> | BoaterDave wrote:
>
>>> What type of work might require the use of a browser with so many
>>> flaws?
>
> | This is not a useful question, because it is based on the 'inner'
> | thoughts and unknown configuration or requirements of this cited person
>
> Like compatibility issues.
>
> My org. bars the use of IE8 due to compatibility and compliance issues.
I'm not much of an IE user, but...
... what about using IE8's Compatibility Mode function? That seems to be
a compatibility advantage of IE8 over IE7.
That is, I don't know how it works with your org. - whether 'barring'
means 'I don't care if you can make it work or not, you are not allowed
to use it IE8 here and you are not in charge of the admin of the
computer (install/update to IE8) you use while in our org.'
Previously I think there was a section in the wikipedia in which it
explained how IE8 was less compatible than IE7, but I can't find that
section now, so it must have been edited away. Could that be because of
compatibility mode advantages?
I think I'll look in the discussion section some more for it - the
missing compatibility issue - so far no go.
--
Mike Easter
~BD~
> BoaterDave wrote:
>
>> What type of work might require the use of a browser with so many
>> flaws?
[....]
> In my opinion -1- if used very carefully, one could use IE6, but it is
> dangerous -2- if used judiciously, one can use Fx almost any place you
> need to especially as more and more sites became compatible as Fx gained
> share -3- by this late date, the same sites which the unknown target IE6
> user couldn't use anything else, can now accommodate all kinds of IE and
> other browsers, so the original premise is almost entirely gone.
>
> ... which is what makes your question not useful and thus a waste of time.
Have a WAG - What type of work might require the exclusive use of IE6
specifically?
Methinks the OP knows the answer, even if you don't Mike! :)
Mike Easter
> Have a WAG - What type of work might require the exclusive use of IE6
> specifically?
You can design/write a page so that the page functions will not
cooperate with the browser unless the browser indicates characteristics
which satisfy the 'page'/webserver.
So, then the answer would be any page/work that was designed to only
work/cooperate with browsers which have answers which correspond to IE6
and/or render with errors -error correcting - according to the kinds of
errors that IE6 tolerates.
That is, you can design a bad page and tweak it until it will cooperate
with IE6's error tolerance (and identification) and no other browser.
Then, even if another browser 'simulated' - called itself - IE6, it
could not perform properly because it would not correct/tolerate the
page's errors satisfactorily.
If you are intending to play a game called "I am thinking of something;
what is it?" that game is as silly as your original premise.
--
Mike Easter
~BD~
> All versions of IE affected. This Security Released was published today
> Nov 3
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/2458511.mspx
Computerworld - An exploit of an unpatched Internet Explorer
vulnerability has been added to a popular crimeware kit, a move that
will probably push Microsoft to fix the flaw with an emergency update, a
security researcher said Sunday.
Meanwhile, a prominent vulnerability expert has sided with Microsoft,
which has said the bug will be difficult to exploit in Internet Explorer
8 (IE8), the most popular version of the company's browser.
Last week, Microsoft warned users of its IE6, IE7 and IE8 browsers that
hackers were already exploiting a vulnerability in the programs by
tricking them into visiting malicious or compromised Web sites. Once at
such a site, users were subjected to a "drive-by" attack that required
no action on their part to succeed.
~BD~
> BoaterDave wrote:
>
>> What type of work might require the use of a browser with so many
>> flaws?
>
> This is not a useful question, because it is based on the 'inner'
> thoughts and unknown configuration or requirements of this cited person
I'm afraid you are mistaken, Mike! At this link:-
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.test.here/msg/b4d1915a8b9b493f?hl=en
The very *same* cited person says ........
"I do pick ups which is a part of my service. All the large Companies
and Corporations trust me and I keep the trust. I sign in with my IP and
sign out when done. Security checks are done randomly at these clients
of mine.
BTW Dave. I am Bonded and have high level Security clearances from
Canada, USA, England, France and Belgium"
>> "I am still using IE6 and I have no interest in going to IE 7, 8, or
>> 9. Mine is hardened to the max and plus and I am extremely happy with
>> it. Besides I am not able to do what I need to with any of the newer
>> versions. They (MS) took out all the codes from the newer ones that is
>> needed for my work"
>
> You can consider this snip from the wiki, which article you have already
> cited, so you must be familiar.
Indeed.
>> IE6 remained more popular than its successor in business use for more
>> than a year after IE7 came out.[19] A DailyTech article noted, "A
>> Survey found 55.2% of companies still use IE 6 as of December 2007",
>> while "IE 7 only has a 23.4 percent adoption rate".[19] - Net
>> Applications estimated IE6 market share at almost 39% for September,
>> 2008.[20] According to the same source, IE7 users migrate faster to
>> IE8 than users of its predecessor IE6 does. This led to IE6 once
>> again becoming the most widely used browser version. During the
>> summer and fall of 2009, 8 years after its introduction, IE6 still
>> held the top spot in terms of browser marketshare.[21]
>
> Consequently, one can assume that many web interfaces may have been more
> compatible with IE6 than IE7 and (still) compatible with IE6 and not
> other browsers - causing the person who we can't 'fault' or question
> because they aren't here
But he *is* here! ;-)
> to find his other options unsatisfactory.
> Then, when IE8 came out, it was initially less compatible (with those
> older cites) than IE7, causing a 'hardening' of his opinions and
> conviction.
>
> In my opinion -1- if used very carefully, one could use IE6, but it is
> dangerous -2- if used judiciously, one can use Fx almost any place you
> need to especially as more and more sites became compatible as Fx gained
> share -3- by this late date, the same sites which the unknown target IE6
> user couldn't use anything else, can now accommodate all kinds of IE and
> other browsers, so the original premise is almost entirely gone.
>
> ... which is what makes your question not useful and thus a waste of time.
As usual, he avoids answering simple questions so I guess you are right.
Always remember, though, that the truth *will* out! :)
David H. Lipman
Please STOP your childish trolling !
You are supposed to be an adult.
Act like one !
StevieO
to stop praying to allah and wear his/her shoes
into the mosque.
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:ibbd4...@news1.newsguy.com...
~BD~
<SNIP>
Previously, here,
<u4zdkZS0...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>
You said:
"I tell you why you should "trust" Peter.
Because Peter Foldes *IS* trustworthy ...."
**
Do you still stand by what you said then, Mr Lipman?
In my own experience, Peter Foldes is a prolific liar and a total fraud.
I'd *really* like to know why you are so confident that someone using
IE6 for his /work/ can be trusted. Please advise.
StevieO
"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:1f-dneTSGfFj30TR...@bt.com...
<SNIP>
**
Do you still stand by what you said then, Mr Lipman?
In my own experience, I am a prolific liar and a total fraud.
David H. Lipman
STFU -- you are trolling and I'd trust Peter over YOU any day of the week!
~BD~
>
I'm afraid that *YOU* have now lost all credibility *David H Lipman*!
You are *NOT* to be trusted - ever.
David H. Lipman
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> BoaterDave wrote:
>>
>>> What type of work might require the use of a browser with so many
>>> flaws?
>>
>> This is not a useful question, because it is based on the 'inner'
>> thoughts and unknown configuration or requirements of this cited person
>
> I'm afraid you are mistaken, Mike! At this link:-
So the purpose of this line of questioning/ thread/ was to draw us tinu
into a PF/BD interaction in test.here from 2009 Feb?
That thread does not contain the citation about IE6, and it wouldn't
matter if it did, because the nature of the thread was a BD/PF interaction.
In such interactions, I do not believe what PF is telling BD and I do
not believe how BD interprets PF.
So, (even) if PF said that to BD in some other thread at some other time
it would not be commentary worth evaluating.
>> ... which is what makes your question not useful and thus a waste of
>> time.
>
> As usual, he avoids answering simple questions so I guess you are right.
--
Mike Easter
~BD~
> ~BD~ wrote:
[....]
>> I'm afraid you are mistaken, Mike! At this link:-
>
> So the purpose of this line of questioning/ thread/ was to draw us tinu
> into a PF/BD interaction in test.here from 2009 Feb?
>
> That thread does not contain the citation about IE6, and it wouldn't
> matter if it did, because the nature of the thread was a BD/PF interaction.
>
> In such interactions, I do not believe what PF is telling BD and I do
> not believe how BD interprets PF.
>
> So, (even) if PF said that to BD in some other thread at some other time
> it would not be commentary worth evaluating.
>
Peter Foldes said (recently) .......
Buffalo
David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org>
>
> Once again, proving your troll status.
Yes he/she/it is.
Buffalo
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> In such interactions, I do not believe what PF is telling BD and I do
>> not believe how BD interprets PF.
>>
>> So, (even) if PF said that to BD in some other thread at some other time
>> it would not be commentary worth evaluating.
>>
>
> Peter Foldes said (recently) .......
Anything that starts with PF said to BD or BD said to PF is not worth
reading.
--
Mike Easter
~BD~
You *did* read it though, Mike! :)
Dustin
news:B92dnZwoZawENETR...@bt.com:
Are you keeping track of the amount of helpful persons you alienate and
turn away? It's painfully obvious you'll never get a clue.
--
Stupidity isn't a crime. So you're free to go.
~BD~
Maybe it would be good if *you* were to explain why someone is using IE6
for business purposes, Dustin.
A WAG would be better than nothing at all.
RayLopez99
wrote:
> From: "~BD~" <~...@nomail.afraid.org>
>
> Once again, proving your troll status.
>
> --
> Dave
> Multi-AV Scanning Tool -http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
What could a mild-mannered poster like you possibly do to piss off
this person?
Unless...unless you really are a B.S. artist.
RL
VanguardLH
> Once again, proving your troll status.
Sorry, Dave, he is correct about you spewing "STFU" at him. His
feelings are hurt. I normally don't see his posts because I've got him
killfiled but was experimenting with editing my rules just now and
sometimes he nymshifts again and I have to update. He nymshifts within
the very same thread all the time (I think I found around 10 nyms for
him so far for permutations between moniker and e-mail fields).
The evidence that BoaterDave was too fucking lazy to produce is found
at:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy.spyware/msg/8a5b785f18558b07?dmode=source&utoken=2DpdNDMAAADoDsZSpxZYjhIqH65tyeBjfwLAiZPBOfJ5mS5yQ6t2yleICtYRRKRoCz7FQALxGtg-Vmkvn2RMZeoBprgVqWS1
(short URL: http://tinyurl.com/2czwzsv)
Looking at the headers, it sure looks like you (with a slight difference
in the e-mail field in the From header but the other headers match with
your retort here). That Lipman "STFU" reply was:
- Path header shows it was submitted through newsguy.com - same NSP that
you used here in your reply in this thread. This cannot be modified
by imposter. The imposter would have to also use newsguy to submit
their posts so their injection point was the same as yours - and that
means YOU (if you claim that post isn't yours) should be contacting
newsguy to kill the imposter's account.
- From header is the same as your reply here both in syntax and values
for comment and email fields. Could be forged by an imposter.
- Organization header is the same. Imposter can also forge this.
- Message-ID shows post came from newsguy.com. This can be modified by
an imposter's NNTP client; however, in this case, it matches the
injection point listed in Path header.
- The NNTP-Posting-Host header is worthless. It points back to a host
owned by the newsguy.com service.
- If it was an imposter, they managed to get the same exact value for
the X-Newsreader header (both in client name and version).
- Looks like the X-Face header has the same value in that other post and
your reply here (although an imposter could include it).
So are you, the David Lipman here in this thread, claiming that you did
not submit the "STFU" reply over in the alt.privacy.spyware newsgroup?
From your reply here and the "STFU" post over in alt.privacy.spyware,
just what do you claim shows that the "STFU" post wasn't yours?
As to Boater Dave's claim that you can't be trusted, that's just him
pouting like the 4-year old that he is. He isn't mentally equipped to
handle insults (to ignore them or retort in kind) and you should already
know that and stop taunting him as it really doesn't reflect well on
your behavior, either. It really looks like BD suckered you into your
insulting reply; i.e., you fell for his tactic.
So if your reply here was to infer that you never did say STFU to
BoaterDave then you've been exposed as a liar. If you just wanted to
continue the insult thread from there to this thread here, looks like he
suckered you again.
David H. Lipman
| David H. Lipman wrote:
>> Once again, proving your troll status.
| Sorry, Dave, he is correct about you spewing "STFU" at him. His
| feelings are hurt. I normally don't see his posts because I've got him
| killfiled but was experimenting with editing my rules just now and
| sometimes he nymshifts again and I have to update. He nymshifts within
| the very same thread all the time (I think I found around 10 nyms for
| him so far for permutations between moniker and e-mail fields).
| The evidence that BoaterDave was too fucking lazy to produce is found
| http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy.spyware/msg/8a5b785f18558b07?dmode=source&
| utoken=2DpdNDMAAADoDsZSpxZYjhIqH65tyeBjfwLAiZPBOfJ5mS5yQ6t2yleICtYRRKRoCz7FQALxGtg-
I never claimed I didn't write "STFU" to BD. You have over anyalized this.
I wrote "Once again, proving your troll status."
To the fact that he extracted the reply, conveniently snipping out "you are trolling" in
the full text reply... "STFU -- you are trolling and I'd trust Peter over YOU any day of
the week!"
But he took the misquoted text and then created a new subject x-posting the newly created
subject reply to other groups.
He was trolling in a.p.s and I called him out on it. BoaterDave is a bloody troll!
StevieO
> From: "~BD~"<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org>
>
>
>
I'm afraid that *I* have now lost all credibility !
I am *NOT* to be trusted - ever.
StevieO
"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:tJadnTcinMk2TkjR...@bt.com...
~BD~
> I'm afraid that *I* have now lost all credibility !
>
> I am *NOT* to be trusted - ever.
I agree with StevieO!
StevieO
You have way to much shit in yours.
"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:WMGdnVp5OJOP0UTR...@bt.com...
> From: "~BD~"<~BD~@nomail.afraid.org>
>
>
>
I'm afraid that *I* have now lost all credibility !
Mynews [ OK US EN ]
> wrote:
>> From: "~BD~" <~...@nomail.afraid.org>
>> Once again, proving your troll status.
>> Multi-AV Scanning Tool -http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
>
> What could a mild-mannered poster like you possibly do to piss off
> this person?
>
> Unless...unless you really are a B.S. artist.
>
Who David H
He was really B.S. artist..
Possibly piss on you if he can
Mynews [ OK US EN ]
> "Mynews [ OK US EN ]" <webm...@mynews.ath.cx> wrote in
> news:Zu-dnRGLQ6cJiJzO...@giganews.com:
>
>> Ray
>> Who David H
>
> David Lipman is most certainly an antimalware guy. He's quite an expert on
> the subject, actually.
>
> Maybe yourself and Ray could chip together for a free ebook on learning
> assembler? You could then help him with that source code I posted. He's
> having a really hard time with "int". First he thought it stood for integer
> (hahahah, no really), then he explained you could only have int16,32,64
> etc... so he was obviously confused again concerning "int". Can you help the
> poor sod out?
>
Mynews [ OK US EN ]
<abughunter
@gmail.com>
wrote in message
news:XnsA2D6A8802381BC9X238BHEUFHHI5RJ791
> "Mynews [ OK US EN ]" <webm...@mynews.ath.cx> wrote in
> news:Zu-dnRGLQ6cJiJzO...@giganews.com:
>> Ray
>> Who David H
> David Lipman is most certainly an antimalware guy. He's quite an expert on
> the subject, actually.
For You live in the pass like a Ray Troller that you are
> Maybe yourself and Ray could chip together for a free ebook on learning
> assembler?
and others use the term assembly language
But if you and Ray do Bing.Com
Assembler Tutorial 1996 Edition
Dustin
Do you have win 3.11 ?
C:\TCWIN\BIN\TCW
C:\TCWIN\DOC\WINMEM
Do you need a 16 assembler on Floppy Image
it will not run on a 32
Or may you looking for a 8 Assembler
But that before your time
For old PC BOS call read it
I can Convert it 16 assembler DOS
COM to EXE for you if need be
.
Did you learn that with a e-book
If so link and webpage please
> You could then help him with that source code I posted.
> He's having a really hard time with "int".
> First he thought it stood for integer (hahahah, no really),
> then he explained you could only have int16,32,64 etc...
> so he was obviously confused again concerning "int".
Because you play Games
It your Job to explained and help
> Can you help the poor sod out?
Or be a Troll
Mynews [ OK US EN ]
>> For You live in the pass like a Ray Troller that you are
>> I need no e-book on learning 16 or a 32 Instructions Assembler Language
>> and others use the term assembly language
>> Dustin
>> Do you have win 3.11 ?
Visual PC 2004 or VisualBox
Good place for it
>> Do you need a 16 assembler on Floppy Image
>> it will not run on a 32
>> Or may you looking for a 8 Assembler
>> But that before your time
>> For old PC BOS call read it
> time; it's what I started with on a motorolla chip. [g] Stupid fucker.
Motorolla CB VHF AM FM chip?
Then came Intel Chips
And Mom Ball 'At&T' say: Thank God
>> I can Convert it 16 assembler DOS
>> COM to EXE for you if need be
>
> kiddo.
A&b complex season
alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus
Can C your way-out
>
>> Did you learn that with a e-book
>> If so link and webpage please
>
> called them text files back then. *shrug*.
< http://www.fiestamart.com/umbraco/storelocator/FiestaMartWeeklyPDFs/Store_11.pdf >
FASM 32
>>> You could then help him with that source code I posted.
>>> He's having a really hard time with "int".
>>> First he thought it stood for integer (hahahah, no really),
>>
>> Int = Interruptions and file managing
C++
Win32
uses: Int [file managing] + more ;)
>> No Introduction for you
>> Because you play Games
> commented it the first time; he dismissed my comments and tried to "teach
> me" about assembler. Thing is, he knows nothing about it.
True
>He can't teach me
> a god damn thing.
The Truth is no one can teach you
Because
You don't learning a thing from Mr. Lipman
>> It your Job to explained and help
The best that he can..
> It's not my job to teach Ray, you or anyone else how to create a functional
> virus or other piece of malware. It would be very irresponsible of me to do
> so.
>> Dustin you can help out
Dustin you
O'z Ok
Malware Int create a functional
For a virus file managing
We need to mov all that amber
Down the Internet too
You know that ~BD~ is running a
Visual PC with XP Pro on his Mac X
I believe it will get a virus
with in 60 days
~BD~
> From: "VanguardLH" <V...@nguard.LH>
>
> | David H. Lipman wrote:
>
>>> Once again, proving your troll status.
>
> | Sorry, Dave, he is correct about you spewing "STFU" at him. His
> | feelings are hurt. I normally don't see his posts because I've got him
> | killfiled but was experimenting with editing my rules just now and
> | sometimes he nymshifts again and I have to update. He nymshifts within
> | the very same thread all the time (I think I found around 10 nyms for
> | him so far for permutations between moniker and e-mail fields).
> | pouting like the 4-year old that he is. He isn't mentally equipped to
> | handle insults (to ignore them or retort in kind) and you should already
> | know that and stop taunting him as it really doesn't reflect well on
> | your behavior, either. It really looks like BD suckered you into your
> | insulting reply; i.e., you fell for his tactic.
>
> | So if your reply here was to infer that you never did say STFU to
> | BoaterDave then you've been exposed as a liar. If you just wanted to
> | continue the insult thread from there to this thread here, looks like he
> | suckered you again.
>
> I never claimed I didn't write "STFU" to BD. You have over anyalized this.
>
> I wrote "Once again, proving your troll status."
> To the fact that he extracted the reply, conveniently snipping out "you are trolling" in
> the full text reply... "STFU -- you are trolling and I'd trust Peter over YOU any day of
> the week!"
> But he took the misquoted text and then created a new subject x-posting the newly created
> subject reply to other groups.
>
> He was trolling in a.p.s and I called him out on it. BoaterDave is a bloody troll!
Mr Lipman - why was your employment with Malwarebytes terminated?
All BD has *ever* sought is the TRUTH! Please answer the question
accordingly.
-
~BD~
>> Of course BD is a troll - he just will NOT lie down, will he? ;-)
>
>> Mr Lipman - why was your employment with Malwarebytes terminated?
>
Please tell me why that is any of *your* business, Dustin.
> Why did you change your telephone number?
I moved house.
>> All BD has *ever* sought is the TRUTH! Please answer the question
>> accordingly.
>
I usually am truthful.
--
The only people who make a difference are the people who believe they can.
David H. Lipman
reasons.
--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
~BD~
That is *exactly* the same reason Siljaline gave for the removal of his
photograph and brief personal details from the Aumha VSOP page!
Do you remember me discussing that?
-
~BD~
>
>> Of course BD is a troll - he just will NOT lie down, will he? ;-)
>
No. I was being sarcastic!
>> Mr Lipman - why was your employment with Malwarebytes terminated?
>
That's really none of your business, Graham.
>> All BD has *ever* sought is the TRUTH! Please answer the question
>> accordingly.
>
> nation are taken seriously. Requests for personal info is stalking.
I think you *are* mistaken.
> If any of your "victims" contact me directly I will tell them how to deal
> with it.
You've not yet been able to "deal with it" yourself! ;-)
-