[News] Microsoft Acknowledges UAC is a Failure
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| It seems like everyone, other than possibly Microsoft's Vista team
| itself, seems to believe that the User Account Control (UAC) in
| Vista already needs an overhaul.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=277
Lots and lots of criticisms below.
Related:
,----[Quote ]
| "Oh, excuse me, is this supposed be a joke? We all remember all those
| Microsoft's statements about how serious Microsoft is about security in
| Vista and how all those new cool security features like UAC or Protected
| Mode IE will improve the world's security. And now we hear what?
`----
http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/2007/02/vista-security-model-big-joke.html
Vista's Faux Security
,----[ Quote ]
| At the end of the new Apple ad, the security guard finally asks the
| hapless PC: "You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or allow?"
|
| Unfortunately, after conditioning the world to click "allow," all
| Microsoft will have accomplished is to pass the buck to the hapless
| PC user, trying to make the user responsible for anything bad that
| happens because they ultimately chose to allow it.
|
| While that may allow Microsoft?s security engineers to sleep at night,
| the rest of us won't rest as easy until Vista's holes are plugged
| with something more substantial than a dialog box.
`----
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/article.php/11162_3660976_2
Vista's UAC security is hopeless, says Symantec
,----[ Quote ]
| A key security feature of Windows Vista, User Account Control (UAC) is
| still nearly unusable, Symantec has said.
|
| At a press presentation last week, Symantec vice president of
| engineering Rowan Trollope said Symantec's customers had found the
| feature so "chatty", that it was a burden on users, potentially
| creating new help-desk calls.
`----
http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=7769
Windows Vista set to overwhelm helpdesks
,----[ Quote ]
| The Windows Vista features that will most benefit end users are
| likely to cause a flood of calls to enterprise IT help desks, it
| was claimed today.
|
| SupportSoft predicted that one of the main areas in which
| end-users are likely to experience problems will be dealing
| with Vista's security features.
`----
http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=44424
Windows Forces you to use UAC to Add a Printer
,----[ Quote ]
| Another bug that got past the extensive RTM testing process? Nope.
| It's a bug that came into existence during the finalization process.
| This bug wasn't there in RC2, but it's most definitely there now. All
| we can say is, hopefully this gets patched before SP6.
`----
http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/326
Windows Vista Tip: Run as administrator
,----[ Quote ]
| This will make every admin operation prompt you for credentials
| while it is great if you do a lot of remote operations it can
| become tedious if you are performing a lot of local admin operations.
`----
http://windowsconnected.com/blogs/joshs_blog/archive/2006/12/01/windows-vista-tip-run-as-administrator.aspx
http://tinyurl.com/y64c6r
Microsoft: Turn off Vista's UAC to fix problems
,----[ Quote ]
| I've been fairly critical of the new User Access Control (UAC) in
| Windows Vista, as I feel it is too secure to be usable, which will
| probably result in many users and corporations turning off and
| losing out on what could have been Vista?s best feature.
|
| [...]
|
| He recommends turning UAC back on after fixing the problem, but
| when users need to do this more than a couple of times to get a
| usable system, they will just leave it turned off.
`----
http://beta.amanzi.co.nz/2006/11/13/microsoft-turn-off-vistas-uac-to-fix-problems/
'Vista's Account Protection: One Click and It's Gone'
,----[ Quote ]
| One of Vista's big security features is 'User Account Protection'
| (or 'User Account Control') which pops up and asks for user
| authentication before software can make any administrative changes to
| the system. But the TweakVista utility can turn off UAP in one click...
`----
http://securitydot.net/news/exploits/vulnerabilities/articles/2661/news.html
The Truth About User Privileges
,----[ Quote ]
| Has the time finally come for the least-privilege user -- you know,
| setting your Windows client machines to run without system
| administrator rights?
|
| [...]
|
| Today, some Windows applications just won't run properly on a
| desktop without administrative rights. "It's a dirty little
| secret people sweep under the rug because they're not able to
| do much about the problem. A lot of applications and pieces
| of environments won't work if users aren't given admin rights,"
| says Steve Kleynhans, vice president for Gartner's client
| platforms group. "If you can get applications to function
| with lower rights, in a lot of cases it hampers the user
| experience."
`----
http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=110225&WT.svl=news1_1
Opinion: 'Vista Casts A Pall On PC Gaming'
,----[ Quote ]
| In the interest of full disclosure I should make it clear that in a
| previous life time I was responsible for all of Microsoft's OS
| strategy for games and media, from writing the original DirectX
| development plan, to managing Microsoft?s relationships with the
| industries leading game developers. 10 years after launching DirectX
| 1.0, I still have strong opinions and feelings about how to make
| Windows a great game platform, and probably feel a stronger sense
| of pique than most when I see Microsoft making careless or callous
| mistakes that impact game developers.
`----
Erik Funkenbusch
> Vista's UAC needs an overhaul. Ideas?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| It seems like everyone, other than possibly Microsoft's Vista team
>| itself, seems to believe that the User Account Control (UAC) in
>| Vista already needs an overhaul.
> `----
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=277
>
> Lots and lots of criticisms below.
To those people that continue to believe that Roy isn't creating fraudulent
headlines, please tell me where in the reference article it says anything
about Microsoft acknowledging that UAC is a Failure.
It's not there.
Roy is a liar.
Peter Köhlmann
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/02/12/638372.aspx
/quote
It should be clear then, that neither UAC elevations nor Protected Mode IE
define new Windows security boundaries. Microsoft has been communicating
this but I want to make sure that the point is clearly heard. Further, as
Jim Allchin pointed out in his blog post Security Features vs Convenience,
Vista makes tradeoffs between security and convenience, and both UAC and
Protected Mode IE have design choices that required paths to be opened in
the IL wall for application compatibility and ease of use.
/unquote
Care to dispute that also, Erik "FUDdingmuch" Funkenbusch?
--
"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj
Erik Funkenbusch
Even if your quote said what Roy's headline did (which it doesn't), Roy is
still making a fraudulent headline.
Johan Lindquist
Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
> Even if your quote said what Roy's headline did (which it doesn't),
> Roy is still making a fraudulent headline.
Er, so, even if it wasn't actually wrong, as headlines go, it was
still fradulent? I'm not commenting on whether the article said or
didn't say what you think it didn't say, I'm just curious about your
logic. As usual, it's somewhat fuzzy - at least to me.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
10:14:41 up 106 days, 7:56, 5 users, load average: 0.10, 0.21, 0.38
Linux 2.6.18.1 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
Roy Schestowitz
> So anyway, it was like, 23:12 CET Feb 22 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
>
>> Even if your quote said what Roy's headline did (which it doesn't),
>> Roy is still making a fraudulent headline.
>
> Er, so, even if it wasn't actually wrong, as headlines go, it was
> still fradulent? I'm not commenting on whether the article said or
> didn't say what you think it didn't say, I'm just curious about your
> logic. As usual, it's somewhat fuzzy - at least to me.
It's not fuzzy (0<x<1). It's a 'binary condition', just like the company he
shills for. How palpable.
From the message in the blog item, the subject line can be implied. It's just
less cautious in mitigating the PR damage, which is something that ZDNet's
_Microsoft_ blog would attempt to do. Mary always avoid inflammatory words,
as opposed to, let us say, Laura Benley (even MOG), who gets slammed for
sensationalism.
--
~~ Best wishes
Beware the Windows box spewage (more commonly known as "spam")
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
10:20am up 31 days 10:38, 8 users, load average: 0.45, 0.63, 0.44
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
Erik Funkenbusch
> So anyway, it was like, 23:12 CET Feb 22 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
>
>> Even if your quote said what Roy's headline did (which it doesn't),
>> Roy is still making a fraudulent headline.
>
> Er, so, even if it wasn't actually wrong, as headlines go, it was
> still fradulent? I'm not commenting on whether the article said or
> didn't say what you think it didn't say, I'm just curious about your
> logic. As usual, it's somewhat fuzzy - at least to me.
Peter quoted a different article.
Erik Funkenbusch
> __/ [ Johan Lindquist ] on Friday 23 February 2007 09:17 \__
>
>> So anyway, it was like, 23:12 CET Feb 22 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
>>
>>> Even if your quote said what Roy's headline did (which it doesn't),
>>> Roy is still making a fraudulent headline.
>>
>> Er, so, even if it wasn't actually wrong, as headlines go, it was
>> still fradulent? I'm not commenting on whether the article said or
>> didn't say what you think it didn't say, I'm just curious about your
>> logic. As usual, it's somewhat fuzzy - at least to me.
>
> It's not fuzzy (0<x<1). It's a 'binary condition', just like the company he
> shills for. How palpable.
>
> From the message in the blog item, the subject line can be implied. It's just
> less cautious in mitigating the PR damage, which is something that ZDNet's
> _Microsoft_ blog would attempt to do. Mary always avoid inflammatory words,
> as opposed to, let us say, Laura Benley (even MOG), who gets slammed for
> sensationalism.
In other words, you fabricated it.
Johan Lindquist
Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:17:15 +0100, Johan Lindquist wrote:
>> So anyway, it was like, 23:12 CET Feb 22 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
>>> Even if your quote said what Roy's headline did (which it
>>> doesn't), Roy is still making a fraudulent headline.
>>
>> Er, so, even if it wasn't actually wrong, as headlines go, it was
>> still fradulent? I'm not commenting on whether the article said or
>> didn't say what you think it didn't say, I'm just curious about
>> your logic. As usual, it's somewhat fuzzy - at least to me.
>
> Peter quoted a different article.
One which I'm sure you know for a fact Roy wasn't aware of at the
time. And if he was, I'm sure it somehow was out of context and his
headline was still 'fradulent'. Well, it's all clear now.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
11:50:50 up 106 days, 9:32, 4 users, load average: 0.07, 0.06, 0.06
Erik Funkenbusch
> So anyway, it was like, 11:40 CET Feb 23 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:17:15 +0100, Johan Lindquist wrote:
>>> So anyway, it was like, 23:12 CET Feb 22 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>>> Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
>
>>>> Even if your quote said what Roy's headline did (which it
>>>> doesn't), Roy is still making a fraudulent headline.
>>>
>>> Er, so, even if it wasn't actually wrong, as headlines go, it was
>>> still fradulent? I'm not commenting on whether the article said or
>>> didn't say what you think it didn't say, I'm just curious about
>>> your logic. As usual, it's somewhat fuzzy - at least to me.
>>
>> Peter quoted a different article.
>
> One which I'm sure you know for a fact Roy wasn't aware of at the
> time. And if he was, I'm sure it somehow was out of context and his
> headline was still 'fradulent'. Well, it's all clear now.
I don't give a flying fuck what roy might have been "aware of". The title
of an article represents its contents. If the contents do not reflect what
the title says, the title is fraudulent. Regardless, Peters article didn't
say what Roy's subject said either, so your point is purely stupid.
Hadron Quark
Johan is Roy's new Rottweiler now that Peter's teeth are falling out and
Mark Kent has bored himself into a stupor.
--
Johan Lindquist
Hadron Quark was all like, "Dude,
> Johan is Roy's new Rottweiler now that Peter's teeth are falling out
> and Mark Kent has bored himself into a stupor.
Ooh, that's a cutting remark from an anonymous asshole with delusions
of adequacy. I'll be sure to stop harassing your collegue from now on.
Not.
To be honest, I resent being likened to a Rottweiler, I never did like
those much. I'm more a fan of the herding breeds, really.
You're not still mad at me for making fun of your silly accent ploy,
are you?
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
09:30:31 up 112 days, 7:12, 5 users, load average: 0.09, 0.08, 0.08
Johan Lindquist
Yes, arguing with you is generally just that, since you never give
over and never give in (except for abruptly dropping out of a thread
completely when you get sufficiently stuck in an argument).
To be honest, I was pretty much just wondering what you did mean by
the whole "even if [..] still making a fradulent headline" thing, and
then I got carried away abit. I don't read Roy's articles, nor follow
his links, so I shouldn't have commented in the first place.
Apparently you do, and with great vigor at that, sparing no means
to discredit him in followups calling him a liar, and so forth. I
don't really know why you do give a flying fuck at all tho. Did Roy do
something bad to you in a previous life, do you reckon? All the other
people you see as trolls you just ignore (at least by your own word
when asked about it), but this one you relentlessly hound, apparently
to no avail.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
09:19:17 up 112 days, 7:00, 5 users, load average: 0.39, 0.15, 0.11
Hadron Quark
Those who live by the sword. Roy is a spammer and, frequently, a
liar. Whether he lies on purpose or because he simply gets too carried
away is generally unknown. But his continual pathetic attempts to
discredit MS is, frankly, trying. It is hardly surprising that some
people like to redress the balance.
Hadron Quark
> So anyway, it was like, 21:41 CET Feb 23 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Hadron Quark was all like, "Dude,
>
>> Johan is Roy's new Rottweiler now that Peter's teeth are falling out
>> and Mark Kent has bored himself into a stupor.
>
> Ooh, that's a cutting remark from an anonymous asshole with delusions
> of adequacy. I'll be sure to stop harassing your collegue from now on.
> Not.
Ooooo ...so tough! Miaaoowww.
>
> To be honest, I resent being likened to a Rottweiler, I never did like
> those much. I'm more a fan of the herding breeds, really.
Lapdog role is taken by Lapdog Collie.
>
> You're not still mad at me for making fun of your silly accent ploy,
> are you?
No. Of course not. Surely no one gets really mad in a news group like this?
Johan Lindquist
Hadron Quark was all like, "Dude,
> Surely no one gets really mad in a news group like this?
Probably not. They're either already mad (angry or the other), or
they're just bored. Some people do seem alittle frantic tho.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
11:34:49 up 112 days, 9:16, 5 users, load average: 0.23, 0.13, 0.10
Johan Lindquist
Hadron Quark was all like, "Dude,
>> So anyway, it was like, 21:15 CET Feb 23 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> Erik Funkenbusch was all like, "Dude,
>>> I don't give a flying fuck what roy might have been "aware of".
>>> The title of an article represents its contents. If the contents
>>> do not reflect what the title says, the title is fraudulent.
>>> Regardless, Peters article didn't say what Roy's subject said
>>> either, so your point is purely stupid.
>> [..] I don't read Roy's articles, nor follow his links, so I
>> shouldn't have commented in the first place.
>>
>> Apparently you do, and with great vigor at that, sparing no means
>> to discredit him in followups calling him a liar, and so forth. I
>> don't really know why you do give a flying fuck at all tho. Did Roy
>> do something bad to you in a previous life, do you reckon? All the
>> other people you see as trolls you just ignore (at least by your
>> own word when asked about it), but this one you relentlessly hound,
>> apparently to no avail.
>
> Those who live by the sword. Roy is a spammer and, frequently, a
> liar. Whether he lies on purpose or because he simply gets too
> carried away is generally unknown. But his continual pathetic
> attempts to discredit MS is, frankly, trying. It is hardly
> surprising that some people like to redress the balance.
I (once again) realise you're just trolling now, since noone can be so
blatantly unaware of their own hypocrisy. Twice in one thread, too.
It's not a record by far in these parts, obviously, but still.
IHBT, IHL. HTH, HAND.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
11:35:55 up 112 days, 9:17, 5 users, load average: 0.11, 0.12, 0.09
Hadron Quark
Jamie Hart
news:87fy8py...@gmail.com:
> Johan Lindquist <sp...@smilfinken.net> writes:
>
>> So anyway, it was like, 10:17 CET Mar 01 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> Hadron Quark was all like, "Dude,
>>>
>>> Those who live by the sword. Roy is a spammer and, frequently, a
>>> liar. Whether he lies on purpose or because he simply gets too
>>> carried away is generally unknown. But his continual pathetic
>>> attempts to discredit MS is, frankly, trying. It is hardly
>>> surprising that some people like to redress the balance.
>>
>> I (once again) realise you're just trolling now, since noone can be so
>> blatantly unaware of their own hypocrisy. Twice in one thread, too.
>
> Example of me lying please?
>
You called Roy a spammer. Nothing he posts fits the description of spam, so
he's not a spammer. Therefore you lied.
DFS
> You called Roy a spammer. Nothing he posts fits the description of
> spam, so he's not a spammer. Therefore you lied.
Of course Roy S. is an abusive spammer. By definition, his flood of
unsolicited anti-MS lies posted to a newsgroup chartered to advocate Linux
is spam.
Johan Lindquist
Hadron Quark was all like, "Dude,
> Johan Lindquist <sp...@smilfinken.net> writes:
>> So anyway, it was like, 10:17 CET Mar 01 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> Hadron Quark was all like, "Dude,
>>> Those who live by the sword. Roy is a spammer and, frequently, a
>>> liar. Whether he lies on purpose or because he simply gets too
>>> carried away is generally unknown. But his continual pathetic
>>> attempts to discredit MS is, frankly, trying. It is hardly
>>> surprising that some people like to redress the balance.
>>
>> I (once again) realise you're just trolling now, since noone can be
>> so blatantly unaware of their own hypocrisy. Twice in one thread,
>> too.
>
> Example of me lying please?
Whereever did that come from?
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
14:12:14 up 112 days, 11:53, 5 users, load average: 0.07, 0.09, 0.09
Hadron Quark
Oh sweet. James is trying to be Captain Logic.
Are you Roy's new pet Poodle? Is his lap still warm after Collies
untimely demise?
Roy is a spammer. He floods the group with "anti-charter" material. He
frequently massages descriptions to fit his own agenda. He clearly has a
private agenda MS and he posts more articles about Vista than he does
about Linux.
Therefore, you are either a troll or (as you would call me) a "moron".
Try some chamomile - it will sooth the whoop ass sores.
Hadron Quark
> So anyway, it was like, 13:27 CET Mar 01 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Hadron Quark was all like, "Dude,
>> Johan Lindquist <sp...@smilfinken.net> writes:
>>> So anyway, it was like, 10:17 CET Mar 01 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>>> Hadron Quark was all like, "Dude,
>
>>>> Those who live by the sword. Roy is a spammer and, frequently, a
>>>> liar. Whether he lies on purpose or because he simply gets too
>>>> carried away is generally unknown. But his continual pathetic
>>>> attempts to discredit MS is, frankly, trying. It is hardly
>>>> surprising that some people like to redress the balance.
>>>
>>> I (once again) realise you're just trolling now, since noone can be
>>> so blatantly unaware of their own hypocrisy. Twice in one thread,
>>> too.
>>
>> Example of me lying please?
>
> Whereever did that come from?
Hmm. We must be at cross purposes. I assumed by my hypocrisy you were
meaning me saying Roy tells porky pies. What do you mean?
chrisv
A few documented Quark lies that I quickly found by googling:
"A COLA advocate NEVER, EVER has any bugs."
"There is more truth in one of them than you and your COLA gang."
(Quark defending the group of "DFS, billwg, ErikF, flatfish, etc")
"In blatant denial to the actual thread Köhlmann & Ko are accusing you
of all sorts of bullshit which you are simply not guilty of." (Quark
defending Oliver Wrong, in the thread where Wrong excused breaking the
law if more money could be made and was then denounced for his
position.)
Jamie Hart
news:%jAFh.119$Y8...@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
People have asked him to post these stories, therefore, by definition,
they are not unsolicited.
If they are noit unsolicited, they are not spam.
Try again, DuFuS.
Jamie Hart
> Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:87fy8py...@gmail.com:
>>
>>> Example of me lying please?
>>>
>> You called Roy a spammer. Nothing he posts fits the description of
>> spam, so he's not a spammer. Therefore you lied.
>>
>
> Oh sweet. James is trying to be Captain Logic.
>
Who the fuck is James?
> Are you Roy's new pet Poodle? Is his lap still warm after Collies
> untimely demise?
>
Uh-huh! Resorting to insults. YOu really should try harder Hadron.
> Roy is a spammer.
No he isn't and you just lied again.
> He floods the group with "anti-charter" material.
True, but that doesn't make him a spammer.
> He
> frequently massages descriptions to fit his own agenda. He clearly has
> a private agenda MS and he posts more articles about Vista than he
> does about Linux.
>
Also true, but that doesn't make him a spammer either.
> Therefore, you are either a troll or (as you would call me) a "moron".
>
With reasoning like that, it's no wonder you get called a moron.
I'm just a guy who doesn't think your bullshit should go unchallenged.
> Try some chamomile - it will sooth the whoop ass sores.
You should know.
Johan Lindquist
Hadron Quark was all like, "Dude,
> Hmm. We must be at cross purposes. I assumed by my hypocrisy you
> were meaning me saying Roy tells porky pies. What do you mean?
No, it was more the calling someone a spammer here after you've been
trolling this group so thoroughly yourself, and in another part of
the thread calling me someone's rottweiler while you're hounding me
for yapping at mr. Funkenbusch. (The latter I do purely for my own
entertainment, btw. You could say I'm my own master. Uncollared,
even.)
That makes two. I didn't even need to drag any other part of your
spectacular behaviour into it to reach that number.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
14:40:20 up 112 days, 12:21, 5 users, load average: 0.14, 0.12, 0.09
Hadron Quark
> So anyway, it was like, 14:23 CET Mar 01 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Hadron Quark was all like, "Dude,
>
>> Hmm. We must be at cross purposes. I assumed by my hypocrisy you
>> were meaning me saying Roy tells porky pies. What do you mean?
>
> No, it was more the calling someone a spammer here after you've been
> trolling this group so thoroughly yourself, and in another part of
> the thread calling me someone's rottweiler while you're hounding me
> for yapping at mr. Funkenbusch. (The latter I do purely for my own
> entertainment, btw. You could say I'm my own master. Uncollared,
> even.)
>
> That makes two. I didn't even need to drag any other part of your
> spectacular behaviour into it to reach that number.
Hmmm. You sound reasonable. I suspect you could read between the lines
of most of what I post which is generally tail pulling of the COLA
gang. For all their posturing, accusations and bad language it is clear
to me that most of them are living in cloud cuckoo land. I find it even
funny when I am told that I don't even use Linux! Anyway, back once more
into the breach .....
DFS
> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in
> news:%jAFh.119$Y8...@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
>
>> Jamie Hart wrote:
>>
>>> You called Roy a spammer. Nothing he posts fits the description of
>>> spam, so he's not a spammer. Therefore you lied.
>>
>> Of course Roy S. is an abusive spammer. By definition, his flood of
>> unsolicited anti-MS lies posted to a newsgroup chartered to advocate
>> Linux is spam.
>>
> People have asked him to post these stories, therefore, by definition,
> they are not unsolicited.
Not only are they unsolicited, many people have asked him NOT to post them.
They are a flood of abusive, off-topic spam.
He knows it, you know it, I know it, etc.
Peter Köhlmann
> Jamie Hart wrote:
>> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in
>> news:%jAFh.119$Y8...@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
>>
>>> Jamie Hart wrote:
>>>
>>>> You called Roy a spammer. Nothing he posts fits the description of
>>>> spam, so he's not a spammer. Therefore you lied.
>>>
>>> Of course Roy S. is an abusive spammer. By definition, his flood of
>>> unsolicited anti-MS lies posted to a newsgroup chartered to advocate
>>> Linux is spam.
>>>
>> People have asked him to post these stories, therefore, by definition,
>> they are not unsolicited.
>
> Not only are they unsolicited, many people have asked him NOT to post
> them.
Yes. Wintrolls like you, Hadron Quark, linux-sux, flatfish
In short, the worst of the scum
The linux users in this group have asked him to post *more* of it
> They are a flood of abusive, off-topic spam.
Actually, they are not.
What part of "comparing to other OS" needs to be explained again to you
dimwits?
> He knows it, you know it, I know it, etc.
You know absolutely nothing. You are DumbFullShit for a reason
>
>> If they are noit unsolicited, they are not spam.
>>
>> Try again, DuFuS.
--
Avoid reality at all costs.
Jamie Hart
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
> Jamie Hart wrote:
>> "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in
>> news:%jAFh.119$Y8...@bignews6.bellsouth.net:
>>
>>> Jamie Hart wrote:
>>>
>>>> You called Roy a spammer. Nothing he posts fits the description of
>>>> spam, so he's not a spammer. Therefore you lied.
>>>
>>> Of course Roy S. is an abusive spammer. By definition, his flood of
>>> unsolicited anti-MS lies posted to a newsgroup chartered to advocate
>>> Linux is spam.
>>>
>> People have asked him to post these stories, therefore, by definition,
>> they are not unsolicited.
>
> Not only are they unsolicited,
How can they be unsolicited when he's been asked to post them?
> many people have asked him NOT to post them.
True, but irrelevant so long as one or more have asked him to.
> They are a flood of abusive, off-topic spam.
>
I've never seen an abusive post from him (though I only read some of
them).
I'll grant that a lot of them are off-topic, I'd prefer him to stick to
pro-linux posts.
But spam? No, not by any definition I've ever seen.
> He knows it, you know it, I know it, etc.
>
I'm afraid not. They may be unwanted by some people, but they aren't
spam.
Johan Lindquist
Hadron Quark was all like, "Dude,
[..]
> Hmmm. You sound reasonable.
Much to my unsurprise, I found myself completely indifferent to this
exuberant praise.
> I suspect you could read between the lines of most of what I post
> which is generally tail pulling of the COLA gang.
In reality land, I believe you're only fooling the ones who are here
for the same reason as yourself. Not that it's not a merry game you're
all playing with each other, of course.
I expect most of the posters here to likewise unsurprised by your
revelation.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
16:24:00 up 112 days, 14:05, 5 users, load average: 0.07, 0.09, 0.09
chrisv
>Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>> I suspect you could read between the lines of most of what I post
>> which is generally tail pulling of the COLA gang.
>
>In reality land, I believe you're only fooling the ones who are here
>for the same reason as yourself. Not that it's not a merry game you're
>all playing with each other, of course.
>
>I expect most of the posters here to likewise unsurprised by your
>revelation.
Indeed. I believe that if a worthless troll like Quark is going to
make an asshole of himself day after day, attacking people with lies
and stupidity*, then nothing the troll says has any weight or value at
all.
An example I recently observed was Quark attacking an advocate,
calling him "petty" and "mean spirited" because the advocate was
motivated to defend the integrity of wikipedia! The garbage asked
that if yttrx is not notable-enough for a wikipedia entry, then maybe
Elvis Presley and the Beatles are also not notable-enough! Clearly,
the f*ckwit has NO integrity - NO desire to be honest. He's a piece
of sh*t.