Widget Debate: Update 6
Snit
1) Daniel posts about the problem associated with auto-installed widgets.
2) MacSlut asked how many brain cells it takes to solve the problem -
clearly implying that it did not take much intelligence to do so.
3) Snit responded by saying it was a matter of technical competence to solve
the problem (the problem still being about auto-installed widgets).
Snit gave a link that supported his claim.
* Tim and Steve claim the link is only about Apple installed widgets
and claim that this means I changed the topic. They are wrong.
* Wally agrees the link is non-specific but claims that the topic
had already changed *before* my post. Wally is wrong.
4) Tim Adams replied with info on how to remove Apple installed widgets.
5) Tim was told his post was off topic though his confusion was reasonable
assuming he had not been following the thread.
6) Tim responded by spewing insults, lies, and shortly after showing he
was ignorant about both how to work with widgets and what the tilde
means in a path.
Wally, Tim, and Carroll have desperately tried to deny the above facts.
They are lying - as they always do to try to defend each other and to troll
me. It is amazing how pathetic the three of them have become.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Part I: The relevant parts of the conversation in question:
1 Daniel Johnson started a thread about the security risk of how OS X
handles third party widgets
<http://snipurl.com/kg38>
2 Macslut replies and includes a statement about how easy it is to remove
these third party widgets
3 I respond to Macslut by pointing out how even a smart person, if not
technically competent, would likely be confused as to how to remove
these third party widgets (Ouch!)
4 Tim Adams changes the topic by explaining how to remove *Apple* installed
widgets.
5 I and Daniel Johnson inform Tim of his error. I also acknowledge how it
is reasonable that Tim could make the error he did if he read my post and
not the thread to understand the context.
Note: Tim denied that Daniel Johnson also corrected him. Here is
the post: <http://snipurl.com/sm7m>. Tim lied.
6 Tim starts calling me names, telling lies about how I did not know how to
remove widgets.
7 I responded to Tim by telling him he is in error but that it is "not a
big deal"
8 Tim tells me that the process he used to remove Apple installed widgets
*also* worked to remove "every single widget... including auto-installed
ones".
9 I inform Tim of his mistake and point him to references to show him that
auto-installed widgets go to the ~/Library/Widget folder and not the
/Library/Widget
10 Tim erroneously claims that all those references support his claim
that all widgets are put in the same folder. In his ignorance of what
the tilde means, Tim talks about the odd path of
"~/users/username/library/widget"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Part II: Areas of contention
1 Tim denies he was ignorant of what the tilde meant. His denial is
simply absurd in light of the facts, listed above. He has many other
quotes which show his ignorance on this, including:
"YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the
name of the hard drive only."
Note how Tim claims the tilde represents "the hard drive only".
He also said:
"Gee, they all support me and the location. Hard drive (or in
their case ~) /library/widget. NOT the
~/users/username/library/widget as at least one other
person said, and you agreed with a day or so ago."
He again was confused on the meaning of the tilde, and again in the
next quote from him:
"With ~ equal to the name of my hard drive, I locate ALL of the
widgets. With it equal to harddrive/user/username/library there IS
NO directory called widget UNLESS you've installed the malware
widget or another self installed widget.
As such, when the articles YOU directed me to indicated that widgets
were at ~/library/widgets THE ARTICLES WERE USING THE ~ AS THE NAME
OF THE HARD DRIVE AND NOT THE FULL PATH
harddrive/user/username/library"
and also:
Until the widget folder is created at
users/username/library/widgets, why would O'Reilly and others direct
you to a non-existing location with their ~/library/widgets IF as
you claim, the ~ means user/username?
There simply is no reasonable doubt that Tim Adams was ignorant of what
the tilde meant, which would not be a big deal if he not only was in
denial of his ignorance but *also* repeatedly lied and trolled me over
pointing out his ignorance.
2 Tim insists that the link I responded to MacSlut with (Part I:3) was in
reference to Apple-installed widgets only. His "evidence" is that on
other pages where Apple mentions third party software by name they also
have a standard disclaimer.
Tim's "evidence" did not hold up to scrutiny at all - the page in
question did not talk about any given third party product, just how
OS X handles third party products in general. I was able to link to
several other similar pages on Apple's site that also did not have
the disclaimer. I purposely found and pointed to ones that made
references to third party software.
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301572>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302061>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301629>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302240>
3 Steve Carroll jumped in claiming that since there was no distinction
made on the page I pointed MacSlut to, that this should be seen as a
sign of an implied distinction.
Steve Carroll is insane. Enough said. :)
4 Tim creates another "reason" why the link's page could not relate to
third party apps. He states that the title is "Mac OS X 10.4 Help"
which neither mentions Apple installed nor third party widgets. This,
argues Tim "changed the topic to Apple's widgets." This is a variation
of the same pathetic attempt Steve uses - a lack of distinction is not
a sign of the page making a distinction (or changing to have a
distinction), even if the two of them really, really want it to be.
5 Wally, at least, shows he understand that the page in question was
what I said it was - in reference to all widgets:
"Tim's comments were in response to your post where you failed to
specify any particular type of widget"
"... the whole thread is about auto installed widgets and yet you can
be seen talking about and even supplying a link to non specific
widgets!"
6 Steve claims that since I did not specifically echo back to MacSlut
how to remove widgets (nor give any more details, as I did later for
Tim when he showed he did not know them), this somehow means that I
was disagreeing with MacSlut's comments about how they could be
removed. Of course as Steve is claiming this, even he quotes where
I stated "It is not a matter of intelligence [as MacSlut implied],
but technical competence." In other words Steve read something into my
comments that clearly was not there, namely some claimed disagreement I
had with MacSlut over his pointing out that widgets *could* be removed
or even that for a techie it would be easy. These facts were never
in contention.
When Tim Adams *later* started spewing incorrect information and I
(and Daniel Johnson) quickly corrected him, Steve foolishly takes
that to mean that I did not know the information until Tim made his
errors, as though I should have predicted that Tim would be ignorant
in the specific ways he was and corrected him before he embarrassed
himself by spewing his incorrect information. Once again, Steve's
"defense" is how he was not competent enough to comprehend what was
written so he read into all sorts of things that not only were not
there but that no rational person would take as implied.
The sad thing is Steve takes over 700 words to explain how much
trouble he has comprehending what he reads. <http://snipurl.com/sqk6>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Part III: Side issues where Steve and Tim humiliate themselves
1 Steve Carroll repeatedly demands to know why I pointed MacSlut to the
Apple article I did. The answer is self evident - to show how a
non-technical person would likely not be able to do what he had just
described. Steve repeatedly spewed all sorts of insults and trolling
and then defended his actions by admitting he was not competent enough
to understand what I was talking about.
2 Steve wanted to know why I did not respond to MacSlut's comment
by talking about how Tim's beliefs and claims were flawed... even
though Tim had not yet made his comments!
3 In reference to my post where I used the word "ouch" (Part I:3),
Steve wanted to know why it took me a "whole day" to respond.
While there would be nothing wrong with taking a "whole day" to
respond, as it turns out I responded in less than an hour.
4 Steve back pedaled and claimed he was in reference to another
post, but it turns out I had responded by about 8 AM to a post
made about 5 PM the day before. Nothing wrong with that!
5 Steve wanted to know why in May of 2005 I did not reference an
Apple article posted at the end of August 2005. Perhaps he did
not notice the date, but when I asked him about he merely
snipped and ran.
6 Steve started making fun of my online name, and when I called
him on it he claimed I was using this name "now", as though I
had only recently started doing so. I have used this name,
however, for well over a decade, as Steve knows based on his
digging through other groups to find "dirt" to spew about me.
7 Tim Adams repeatedly name called, went into denial, and just
snipped and ran whenever he could.
8 In typical Carrollesque fashion Steve had the events explained to
him over and over and then he started nit picking the different
wording to tell him the same thing. He also spewed his typical
black and white thinking. Some examples:
* Steve insisted that my disagreement with MacSlut must have meant
I thought MacSlut would think and intelligent person who had
never used a computer would know instantly how to remove
widgets.
* Steve insisted that my disagreement with MacSlut must have meant
that I fully discounted any involvement from intelligence.
9 Wally insisted that there must have been some confusion as to where
auto-installed widgets are placed even before Tim Adams made it clear
he was ignorant. His insistence is based on his own inability to
understand what Daniel and MacSlut were saying.
10 Wally insisted that since MacSlut did not make it clear he was *not*
changing the topic to include all widgets then he must have been
doing so.
11 Wally, as with Tim and Steve, demands that I must have agreed with
the incorrect Apple tech page. He is lying.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV: Conclusions
1 Tim Adams was ignorant of what the tilde meant
2 Tim Adams changed the topic from third party widgets to
Apple installed widgets
3 Tim Adams did not know how to remove third party widgets
4 Steve Carroll, Tim Adams and Wally lie, troll, and flame over
these simple and very well supported facts.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Part V: Conclusions from the meta-argument used to obfuscate the above
1) There is *no* reason Snit would tell MacSlut what MacSlut clearly
already knew, but Steve Carroll tried to push otherwise based on his
poor reading comprehension (as shown by his inability to understand what
Snit *and* MacSlut said) and irrational need to troll and flame Snit.
[Steve has since changed his story to say that Snit and MacSlut
agreed and Snit was merely re-enforcing MacSlut's claims]
2) Steve Carroll and Tim Adams' could neither understand what they read
nor bring themselves to ask about what they found unclear - and then
made up lies and attributed them to me. Steve believes this says
something bad about me and cannot understand why his attempt to use
logic and reasoning is laughable.
3) In regard to the conversation where Tim Adams showed he did not know
what the tilde meant nor how to remove widgets, Steve Carroll said he
wanted to discuss the order of things but it was clear he was lying
because he snipped and ran from the very topic of the order of
things.
4) In reference to the fact that I disagreed with MacSlut about his
implication that removing widgets was merely a matter of intelligence
(I stated it was also a matter of technical competence) Steve concluded
that this must mean I was defining technical competence to mean
*only* finding the correct folder. Once again Steve showed he has
poor reading comprehension and amazingly weak reasoning skills.
5) Wally insists that in the face of any ambiguity it should be assumed
people are changing the topic. He assumed this of me, MacSlut, and
Daniel Johnson. Oddly he does not apply this reasoning to Adams or
Carroll.
---------------------------------------------------------------
All of the above is easy to support. If there are any questions or concerns
about the material let me know and I am happy to support it in more detail.
While I doubt any significant errors will be found, no doubt Steve and Tim
will continue to make asses of themselves.
--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
Dan Johnson
news:C1440DAA.610E6%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
> Facts in brief:
>
> 1) Daniel posts about the problem associated with auto-installed widgets.
My God!
Is this *still going*?
How can I have inspired such a tremendous quantity of
effluvium, and still not be Troll of the Month?
There's no justice in the world! None!
[snip- Poetry! Sheer poetry!]
Snit
12hvhqn...@news.supernews.com on 10/1/06 6:49 AM:
LOL!
Based on your comments and the discussion that came from it, Tim Adams made
an ass out of himself ... *not* by misunderstanding my comments nor even by
being ignorant about what the tilde meant, but by denying those two facts
and then trolling on and on about it.
I am still having fun shoving his BS in his face. He is trying to get
revenge by spewing insults *others* wrote in his .sig, but even then he is
humiliating himself by denying responsibility for his actions... claiming
that since his computer adds the .sig automatically he should not be held
accountable. Maybe someone else set it up for him and he does not know how
to change it? Whatever... just another source of humiliation for Tim.
But wait - it gets better. Despite the massive evidence against Tim, his
co-trolls Wally and, to a lesser extent, Steve Carroll, have tried to jump
in to his defense - both humiliating themselves.
Now they are left in the tricky position of trying to explain why it is that
I, someone they all belittle, have been able to goad them into humiliating
themselves, lying to "help" each other, and proving beyond any reasonable
doubt that they will do and say anything to defend each others trolling.
You brought the shovel to CSMA. Tim Adams grabbed it and dug his own grave.
I pointed that out, and Wally and Steve Carroll jumped into the grave to
show their support for Tim. All very funny.
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> stated in post
> 12hvhqn...@news.supernews.com on 10/1/06 6:49 AM:
>
> > "Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message
> > news:C1440DAA.610E6%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
> >> Facts in brief:
> >>
> >> 1) Daniel posts about the problem associated with auto-installed widgets.
> >
> > My God!
> >
> > Is this *still going*?
> >
> > How can I have inspired such a tremendous quantity of
> > effluvium, and still not be Troll of the Month?
> >
> > There's no justice in the world! None!
> >
> > [snip- Poetry! Sheer poetry!]
> >
> >
> LOL!
>
> Based on your comments and the discussion that came from it,
Snit posted the following:
quote -
"It is not a matter of intelligence, but technical competence. Look in
Apple's support site for removing Widgets:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=Mac/10.4/en/mh2037.html
You cannot remove widgets from the Widget Bar or change their order.
Ouch!"
end quote
Clearly showing his total lack of knowledge of widgets and the way to both
organize them and to remove them.
You might also note that this post by snit
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/8fbf2a503
554a43a/62ed7375955e56ac?&hl=en#62ed7375955e56ac>
clearly changed the topic of the discussion from auto installed widgets to
Apple's widgets since both snit in his post quite clearly references Apple,
Apple does not do auto install widgets and Apple DOES NOT support third party
software on their web site.
The fact that Apple DOES NOT support third party software on their web site has
been pointed out to snit many times now and he still runs away from that one
simple FACT.
You might also find
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/8fbf2a503
554a43a/62ed7375955e56ac?&hl=en#62ed7375955e56ac> interesting as I clearly
stated that "Except I'm not talking about these 'auto-installed widgets' but the
statement, from Apple, posted by snit that you couldn't remove widgets
from the widget bar. You can do so real easy."
--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-7F690B.18...@news.west.earthlink.net on 10/2/06
3:03 PM:
> In article <C1453D1B.611AD%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Dan Johnson" <daniel...@vzavenue.net> stated in post
>> 12hvhqn...@news.supernews.com on 10/1/06 6:49 AM:
>>
>>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote in message
>>> news:C1440DAA.610E6%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID...
>>>> Facts in brief:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Daniel posts about the problem associated with auto-installed widgets.
>>>
>>> My God!
>>>
>>> Is this *still going*?
>>>
>>> How can I have inspired such a tremendous quantity of
>>> effluvium, and still not be Troll of the Month?
>>>
>>> There's no justice in the world! None!
>>>
>>> [snip- Poetry! Sheer poetry!]
>>>
>>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Based on your comments and the discussion that came from it,
>
> Snit posted the following:
> quote -
> "It is not a matter of intelligence, but technical competence. Look in
> Apple's support site for removing Widgets:
>
> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=Mac/10.4/en/mh2037.html
>
> You cannot remove widgets from the Widget Bar or change their order.
>
> Ouch!"
> end quote
I did state that... which you misunderstood, as shown in your comments,
below:
>
> Clearly showing his total lack of knowledge of widgets and the way to both
> organize them and to remove them.
Incorrect.
> You might also note that this post by snit
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/8fbf2a
> 503 554a43a/62ed7375955e56ac?&hl=en#62ed7375955e56ac> clearly changed the
> topic of the discussion from auto installed widgets to Apple's widgets since
> both snit in his post quite clearly references Apple, Apple does not do auto
> install widgets and Apple DOES NOT support third party software on their web
> site.
Again, you are incorrect. In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed
to an Apple tech doc that looked at all widgets. It was completely on
topic. You responded by talking about the widgets *not* in the specific
group being discussed.
> The fact that Apple DOES NOT support third party software on their web site
> has been pointed out to snit many times now and he still runs away from that
> one simple FACT.
Incorrect, but this does show your lack of reading comprehension.
> You might also find
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/8fbf2a
> 503 554a43a/62ed7375955e56ac?&hl=en#62ed7375955e56ac> interesting as I clearly
> stated that "Except I'm not talking about these 'auto-installed widgets' but
> the statement, from Apple, posted by snit that you couldn't remove widgets
> from the widget bar. You can do so real easy."
Funny, Tim, no matter what BS you post, the facts do not change:
1 You were ignorant of how to remove widgets. You repeatedly confused where
Apple installed and pre-installed widgets were located, and could not even
follow the conversation about the widget problem that presented a malware
risk.
2 You did not know the meaning of the tilde, claiming it meant "the hard
drive only", insisting that articles I pointed you to used it to mean
the hard drive, and making other similar errors.
3 Your insistence that my use of the word "ouch" indicated I agreed with
Apple's comments is proof of your weak comprehension abilities. As you
quote me above, it was very possible to remove the widgets - that was
not in question. My claim, which is *still* true, is that it is not
a matter of intelligence, but technical competence. To support this I
showed a tech doc Apple provided - one an intelligent person might find -
that would lead someone astray. The fact it is *still* leading you
astray would prove me right ... if you were intelligent.
4 As you not above, in response to my comments about the topic - the widget
problem that lead to the malware risk, you responded by talking about
something else - more proof that you did not understand the topic of the
conversation.
Now, Tim, do you *still* deny you were ignorant of what the tilde meant? Do
you still insist that it means "the hard drive only"? Do you still insist
the articles I pointed you to used it in the same incorrect way you did?
Come on, Tim... cat got your tongue? Why is it you can never answer those
questions?
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> Again, you are incorrect. In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed
> to an Apple tech doc that looked at all widgets. It was completely on
> topic. You responded by talking about the widgets *not* in the specific
> group being discussed.
A fine example of why any discussion with you Snit only ever leads to fits
of laughter!
You claim to have expanded the discussion from a specific group of widgets
to one involving "all widgets" and yet somehow when Tim responds to your
post directly the widgets that he mentions somehow are exempt from your
understanding of "all widgets"...hilarious!
Thanks Snit You're always good for a giggle if nothing else.:-)
Now you're back in the toy box for a while.
--
"I really is that simple"-Snit
Snit
C1487B83.1A6FE%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/06 5:41 AM:
> On 3/10/06 7:51 AM, in article C146F3F8.61355%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID,
> "Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>
>> Again, you are incorrect. In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed
>> to an Apple tech doc that looked at all widgets. It was completely on
>> topic. You responded by talking about the widgets *not* in the specific
>> group being discussed.
>
> A fine example of why any discussion with you Snit only ever leads to fits
> of laughter!
>
> You claim to have expanded the discussion from a specific group of widgets
> to one involving "all widgets"
Incorrect. *I* was in reference to the on to topic widgets. In support of
a point - the fact that an intelligent person might not know how to work
with the widgets in question - I pointed to a document that was more
general. Here, see if an example helps you:
Say we were discussing Ford internal combustion engines and, in support of
the point that they used gasoline I pointed to a site that talked about
internal combustion *in general*. Would that - to you - mean I was
stretching to topic to cover Toyotas as well?
Hopefully not.
The fact is: the topic was the widget situation that lead to a risk of
malware. Daniel was talking about that. MacSlut was talking about that. I
was talking about that. Tim Adams jumped in and not only *missed* the
context, not only spewed off and showed he was ignorant about where widgets
lived, not only showed he did not understand what the tilde meant, but he
then made matters much worst by trolling, lying, and whining based on *his*
ignorance.
You, Wally, ten humiliated yourself by defending Tim Adams the moron. And
even as of yesterday you were whining it was somehow humiliating to me to
*point out* your stupidity and trolling and watch you run. LOL!
Can you now accept Tim Adams missed the context of the discussion?
Can you now admit the word "ouch" does not imply agreement?
Can you now admit it is very, very clear Tim Adams did no know
what the tilde meant?
Of course you cannot - he is one of your co-trolls and you will defend him
no matter how much you have to humiliate yourself. And I just sit back,
point it out, and laugh.
> and yet somehow when Tim responds to your
> post directly the widgets that he mentions somehow are exempt from your
> understanding of "all widgets"...hilarious!
Thanks for proving me right about you. LOL! Yes, Wally, when Tim Adams
left the topic of auto-installed widgets behind, he, not I, changed the
topic. When Tim Adams insisted the tilde meant the hard drive only, and
when Tim Adams insisted the articles I pointed him to supported him on that,
he proved he was ignorant of what the tilde even meant. You can twist and
turn and whine and lie and humiliate yourself any way you want. You can run
like a coward when I point out these facts. You cannot, however, change
these facts - and you humiliate yourself every time you lie about them. It
is that simple.
>
> Thanks Snit You're always good for a giggle if nothing else.:-)
>
> Now you're back in the toy box for a while.
Gee, you mean you will not answer my questions, above. Oh well. It is not
like I did not predict it.
--
€ It is OK to email yourself files and store them there for a few weeks
€ No legislation supercedes the Constitution (unless it amends it)
€ Apple's video format is not far from NTSC DVD and good enough for most
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C1487B83.1A6FE%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/06 5:41 AM:
>
>> On 3/10/06 7:51 AM, in article C146F3F8.61355%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID,
>> "Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Again, you are incorrect. In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed
>>> to an Apple tech doc that looked at all widgets. It was completely on
>>> topic. You responded by talking about the widgets *not* in the specific
>>> group being discussed.
>>
>> A fine example of why any discussion with you Snit only ever leads to fits
>> of laughter!
>>
>> You claim to have expanded the discussion from a specific group of widgets
>> to one involving "all widgets"
>
> Incorrect.
Absolutely correct!
"In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed to an Apple tech doc that
looked at all widgets."-Snit
The topic was expanded to encompass "all widgets" by *you* Snit!
From then on as Tim's post was in direct response to your post any reference
to whichever group of widgets he chose were on topic...all thanks to you
Snit! LOL!
But I do see where your confusion comes from as you seem to be under the
impression that stating "all widgets" is being non specific! LOL!
<smoke screen snipped>
>
> You, Wally, ten humiliated yourself by defending Tim Adams the moron.
Try not to get too excited Snit your typing goes haywire when you do!
> And
> even as of yesterday you were whining it was somehow humiliating to me to
> *point out* your stupidity and trolling and watch you run. LOL!
If you don't find it humiliating to claim that Tim changed the topic when in
fact he was spot on topic due to your expansion of it ...then so be it! I
really don't care in the least.
> Can you now accept Tim Adams missed the context of the discussion?
I don't have to accept or not accept that point as Tim was clearly
responding to the points you made in your post which expanded the topic
allowing him to comment on your post which was related to "all widgets" as
you have stated.
> Can you now admit the word "ouch" does not imply agreement?
I believe that anyone reading your post would conclude that you used "ouch"
as a exclamation of surprise, in that respect then yes it does indicate that
at that time you had no knowledge to counter that which was stated in the
link that you supplied! I am confident that you remedied that deficiency in
your knowledge soon after you made that post, probably because of Tim's post
that corrected you!
A few easily found examples are...
Ouch...
An expression of disappointment.
Used to express sudden pain or annoyance.
Used as an exclamation expressing sudden pain or dismay.
Used to express sudden pain or displeasure.
Now if you wish to claim that you were disappointed, annoyed, dismayed, or
displeased about something that you now say you knew to be false all the
time then go right ahead. LOL
> Can you now admit it is very, very clear Tim Adams did no know
> what the tilde meant?
If I thought it to be true I could...but I don't!
> Of course you cannot - he is one of your co-trolls and you will defend him
> no matter how much you have to humiliate yourself. And I just sit back,
> point it out, and laugh.
I tend to ... point it out....then sit back, etc!
Each to his/her own.
>> and yet somehow when Tim responds to your
>> post directly the widgets that he mentions somehow are exempt from your
>> understanding of "all widgets"...hilarious!
>
> Thanks for proving me right about you. LOL! Yes, Wally, when Tim Adams
> left the topic of auto-installed widgets behind, he, not I, changed the
> topic.
"In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed to an Apple tech doc that
looked at all widgets."-Snit
WOW! look who really left the topic of auto-installed widgets behind when he
expanded the discussion to include "all widgets" ....you Snit just you!
> When Tim Adams insisted the tilde meant the hard drive only,
Haven't you previously posted that he said it represented the HD?......
How many different versions do you need to make a point where one doesn¹t
exist Snit?
<previously dealt with misinterpretations snipped>
>> Thanks Snit You're always good for a giggle if nothing else.:-)
>>
>> Now you're back in the toy box for a while.
>
> Gee, you mean you will not answer my questions, above. Oh well.
I will always answer any reasonable query about a previous post of mine, I
have for the moment chosen to include your unreasonable assumptions also...
simply for entertainment value.
> It is not like I did not predict it.
Your predictions are almost as funny as your interpretations. :=)
--
"Essentially any unshielded detonation of a nuclear weapon in a city is a
BAD thing."-Snit
Snit
> The topic was expanded to encompass "all widgets" by *you* Snit!
Incorrect. The topic was the auto-installed widgets. I pointed to a
document that referenced those widgets... the fact it also was applicable to
other irrelevant widgets did not change the topic to those widgets... it was
referenced was because it referred to the *relevant* widgets.
Tim then started talking about *just* the irrelevant widgets. It was then,
and not before, that the topic was changed. No less than two people pointed
this out to Tim, and did so kindly. You can spew all the BS you want,
Wally, but that fact will not change - nor will the fact that you will
defend your co-trolls no matter how much you need to lie and twist facts and
spew garbage and snip and run.
> <smoke screen snipped>
> Ouch...
>
> An expression of disappointment.
> Used to express sudden pain or annoyance.
> Used as an exclamation expressing sudden pain or dismay.
> Used to express sudden pain or displeasure.
>
> Now if you wish to claim that you were disappointed, annoyed, dismayed, or
> displeased about something that you now say you knew to be false all the
> time then go right ahead. LOL
Gee, Wally - you mean you *finally* figured out I was "disappointed,
annoyed, dismayed, or displeased" by Apple giving information that was false
(as I, MacSlut, and Daniel clearly knew). By publishing that incorrect
information Apple made the "fix" less a matter of intelligence (assuming an
intelligent person would look up info) and more a matter of technical
competence (being able to figure out the problem yourself). Gee, just like
I said in the post in question.
The funny thing is you are tying to defend Tim Adams by claiming otherwise.
LOL!
>> Can you now admit it is very, very clear Tim Adams did no know
>> what the tilde meant?
>
> If I thought it to be true I could...but I don't!
From another post:
----------
Proof of Tim Adams' ignorance of what the tilde means:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e4d70b3f9e925304>
"YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the
name of the hard drive only."
Note that Tim admits that he "stated" the tilde "indicated the name of the
hard drive only". He is, of course, wrong. In reference to his bizarre
path "~/users/username/library/widget" he ignorantly claimed "It DOES EXISE
IF you had installed (automatically) the malware widget that started the
rage." Please note, no such path is created by *any* standard procedure on
a Mac. I see no other explanation as to why Tim would think so other than
his ignorance about what the tilde meant. Tim, of course, denies this, as
does Wally. Their excuses, however, are laughably dishonest and absurd.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/077366e28cacfd65>
"Gee, they all support me and the location. Hard drive (or in
their case ~) /library/widget. NOT the
~/users/username/library/widget as at least one other
person said, and you agreed with a day or so ago."
Note how Tim ignorantly references the hard drive as being shown with the
tilde and makes the incorrect assumption that the articles support his
error. They do not; each of the articles used the tilde correctly. Tim not
only was ignorant of what the tilde meant, he was not knowledgeable enough
to figure out his error based on the context of the articles. That, along
with other evidence, completely smacks down Wally's BS claim that Tim was
making some translation or whatever... Tim was spewing off and proving that
even when multiple articles provided context he could not figure out what
the tilde meant.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8950b4ada0446ed>
"With ~ equal to the name of my hard drive, I locate ALL of the
widgets. With it equal to harddrive/user/username/library there IS
NO directory called widget UNLESS you've installed the malware
widget or another self installed widget.
As such, when the articles YOU directed me to indicated that widgets
were at ~/library/widgets THE ARTICLES WERE USING THE ~ AS THE NAME
OF THE HARD DRIVE AND NOT THE FULL PATH
harddrive/user/username/library"
Note how Tim starts... by ignorantly claiming the tilde was equal to the
name of his hard drive... which it was not - not unless Tim went far out of
his way to make his machine very non-standard. He again references the
articles and ignorantly claims that they were using the tilde to mean the
hard drive and not the user's directory. Tim clearly and unambiguously lays
his ignorance out for all to see... though Wally chooses to be blind and
stupid. The pathetic part is Tim calls those that do not agree with his
ignorant position idiots... he also claims that he has seen it used in
several ways, though Tim never was able to find a single other example of
anyone making the same mistake he repeatedly made.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/17ffa5a5b8fd9796>
Until the widget folder is created at
users/username/library/widgets, why would O'Reilly and others direct
you to a non-existing location with their ~/library/widgets IF as
you claim, the ~ means user/username?
Note how Tim lies and claims I disagree with the fact that the Widgets
folder in the user directory is not created until it is needed - a claim Tim
*never* backed up because he is lying. Tim again questions why the articles
would point to the path - he does not understand when and how it is created
and still wants to believe they are not pointing to the path in the user's
folder - as they clearly and unambiguously were. Tim was ignorant and, not
knowing how to react when his ignorance was pointed out, Tim lied.
Repeatedly. He and Wally have not been able to stop themselves from lying
since then. Heck, Tim still posts derogatory comments about me in his every
post - a fact he tries to distance himself from and blame his computer,
after all, he says, since .sig files are automatically placed in messages he
feels he should not be held accountable for his despicable and desperate
behavior.
There simply is no reasonable doubt that Tim Adams was ignorant about what
the tilde meant. Tim will *never* admit to this; nor will Wally, Steve
Carroll, or the other trolls in their "herd". They defend each other no
matter how dishonorable they must sink to acting. It is just what they do -
though I do hope that some day they learn to take responsibility for their
actions and be true adults.
----------
Thanks for proving me correct about you, Wally. You will defend Tim Adams
on this no matter how much you need to lie, snip and run, and play other
silly trollish games. We also know that when people point out these facts
about you that you react by whining they are begging you for your attention.
OK. Now we know that about you... is there anything else you want to share?
How about giving honest answers to the following questions:
Can you now accept Tim Adams missed the context of the discussion?
Can you now admit the word "ouch" does not imply agreement?
Can you now admit it is very, very clear Tim Adams did no know
what the tilde meant?
Oh wait... all you can do in response to those questions is lie or snip and
run, and then spew a lot of obfuscations. Oh well. As I said, now we know
this about you... thanks for making it so clear.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Still running from the truth I see.
>
> > You might also note that this post by snit
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/8fbf
> > 2a
> > 503 554a43a/62ed7375955e56ac?&hl=en#62ed7375955e56ac> clearly changed the
> > topic of the discussion from auto installed widgets to Apple's widgets
> > since
> > both snit in his post quite clearly references Apple, Apple does not do
> > auto
> > install widgets and Apple DOES NOT support third party software on their
> > web
> > site.
>
> Again, you are incorrect. In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed
> to an Apple tech doc that looked at all widgets.
And right there you are WRONG. Apple didn't state anything at all about
auto-installed widgets. They were clearly talking about the widgets installed
with Tiger, and others added to that same location. If they were talking about
widgets installed both in the users home directory, as well as the Tiger default
installed widgets they would have indicated that in their web page. They DIDN'T.
> It was completely on
> topic. You responded by talking about the widgets *not* in the specific
> group being discussed.
Only wrong since YOU CAN'T READ.
>
> > The fact that Apple DOES NOT support third party software on their web site
> > has been pointed out to snit many times now and he still runs away from
> > that
> > one simple FACT.
>
> Incorrect, but this does show your lack of reading comprehension.
I'll wait for your support of that. Why not point out an Apple web page
supporting third party software.
>
> > You might also find
> > <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/8fbf
> > 2a
> > 503 554a43a/62ed7375955e56ac?&hl=en#62ed7375955e56ac> interesting as I
> > clearly
> > stated that "Except I'm not talking about these 'auto-installed widgets'
> > but
> > the statement, from Apple, posted by snit that you couldn't remove widgets
> > from the widget bar. You can do so real easy."
>
> Funny, Tim, no matter what BS you post, the facts do not change:
That you can't read and understand what is written. You're right, that never
changes.
~snipped a repeat of lies based on michael glassers inability to comprehend the
written word.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C148AC6D.1A71C%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/06 9:10 AM:
>
> > The topic was expanded to encompass "all widgets" by *you* Snit!
>
> Incorrect. The topic was the auto-installed widgets.
something Apple's web page NEVER mentioned.
~snipped more babbling by snit as he attempts to run from reality
Snit
4:33 PM:
Note: Tim Adams has nothing of value to say.
>
>>
>>> You might also note that this post by snit
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/8fbf
>>> 2a
>>> 503 554a43a/62ed7375955e56ac?&hl=en#62ed7375955e56ac> clearly changed the
>>> topic of the discussion from auto installed widgets to Apple's widgets
>>> since
>>> both snit in his post quite clearly references Apple, Apple does not do
>>> auto
>>> install widgets and Apple DOES NOT support third party software on their
>>> web
>>> site.
>>
>> Again, you are incorrect. In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed
>> to an Apple tech doc that looked at all widgets.
>
> And right there you are WRONG. Apple didn't state anything at all about
> auto-installed widgets. They were clearly talking about the widgets installed
> with Tiger, and others added to that same location. If they were talking about
> widgets installed both in the users home directory, as well as the Tiger
> default
> installed widgets they would have indicated that in their web page. They
> DIDN'T.
Note: Tim Adams *still* cannot figure out that a page that applies to
widgets in general *also* applies to specific widgets. The page did not
specify any subset of widgets. Period.
>
>
>> It was completely on
>> topic. You responded by talking about the widgets *not* in the specific
>> group being discussed.
>
> Only wrong since YOU CAN'T READ.
Note: Tim Adams has nothing of value to say.
>>> The fact that Apple DOES NOT support third party software on their web site
>>> has been pointed out to snit many times now and he still runs away from
>>> that
>>> one simple FACT.
>>
>> Incorrect, but this does show your lack of reading comprehension.
>
> I'll wait for your support of that. Why not point out an Apple web page
> supporting third party software.
>
Note: Tim Adams has nothing of value to say.
>>
>>> You might also find
>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/8fbf
>>> 2a
>>> 503 554a43a/62ed7375955e56ac?&hl=en#62ed7375955e56ac> interesting as I
>>> clearly
>>> stated that "Except I'm not talking about these 'auto-installed widgets'
>>> but
>>> the statement, from Apple, posted by snit that you couldn't remove widgets
>>> from the widget bar. You can do so real easy."
>>
>> Funny, Tim, no matter what BS you post, the facts do not change:
>
> That you can't read and understand what is written. You're right, that never
> changes.
>
>
> ~snipped a repeat of lies based on michael glassers inability to comprehend
> the
> written word.
And Tim Adams runs. The facts stay the same:
* Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
* Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
* Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
humiliation from the above points.
No reasonable person questions those points, Tim. You, Carroll, and Wally
do. Quite telling, eh?
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Snit
4:36 PM:
> In article <C147E805.613DD%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>> C148AC6D.1A71C%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/06 9:10 AM:
>>
>>> The topic was expanded to encompass "all widgets" by *you* Snit!
>>
>> Incorrect. The topic was the auto-installed widgets.
>
> something Apple's web page NEVER mentioned.
>
> ~snipped more babbling by snit as he attempts to run from reality
And Tim Adams runs. The facts stay the same:
* Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
* Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
* Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
humiliation from the above points.
No reasonable person questions those points, Tim. You, Carroll, and Wally
do. Quite telling, eh?
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Steve Carroll
<teadams$2$0$0$3-0C984E.19...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <C147E805.613DD%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
> > "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> > C148AC6D.1A71C%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/06 9:10 AM:
> >
> > > The topic was expanded to encompass "all widgets" by *you* Snit!
> >
> > Incorrect. The topic was the auto-installed widgets.
>
> something Apple's web page NEVER mentioned.
Unlike the other Apple web page that Snit himself brought forth... the
one that did mention they were referencing auto installed widgets. This
is all a side issue anyway. Snit pointed to that first Apple web page
for what reason? According to Snit, to show Macslut something Snit
claimed Macslut already knew... about how to remove widgets. Snit claims
this, yet, that web page said it could not be done. In other words,
Snit's f*cked in the head, as usual;)
--
Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD - Snit
Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself - Snit
I am a bigger liar than Steve - Snit
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C148AC6D.1A71C%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/06 9:10 AM:
>
>> The topic was expanded to encompass "all widgets" by *you* Snit!
>
> Incorrect.
Absolutely correct!
"In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed to an Apple tech doc that
looked at all widgets."-Snit
In a discussion about auto installed widgets you introduced a link that did
not reference that group of widgets thereby expanding the discussion to
include "all widgets" as you have admitted to doing!
> The topic was the auto-installed widgets.
It certainly started out that way until you expanded it to include "all
widgets"!
> I pointed to a document that referenced those widgets...
There was no reference to 'auto-installed widgets' on the link that you
supplied from Apple! you are a liar Snit!
Quote the relevant passage that referenced auto installed widgets from the
Apple article in question!......you won't because you can't!
> the fact it also was applicable to
> other irrelevant widgets did not change the topic to those widgets...
"also applicable"? LOL!
> it was
> referenced was because it referred to the *relevant* widgets.
Your problem being of course that there was no reference to auto installed
widgets in the link that you supplied from Apple! LOL!
--
"With enough glue... anything is possible" - Snit
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
And yet here you are claiming the complete opposite...
Snit wrote...
"The topic was the auto-installed widgets. I pointed to a
document that referenced those widgets..."-Snit
So you claim to have linked to an article that did not specify any group of
widgets but specifically referenced auto installed widgets.....yes I think
we all get the picture now Snit! ROTFL!
Snit
noone-36BAB5....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/3/06 6:12 PM:
> In article
> <teadams$2$0$0$3-0C984E.19...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <C147E805.613DD%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>
>>> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
>>> C148AC6D.1A71C%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/06 9:10 AM:
>>>
>>>> The topic was expanded to encompass "all widgets" by *you* Snit!
>>>
>>> Incorrect. The topic was the auto-installed widgets.
>>
>> something Apple's web page NEVER mentioned.
>
> Unlike the other Apple web page that Snit himself brought forth... the
> one that did mention they were referencing auto installed widgets. This
> is all a side issue anyway. Snit pointed to that first Apple web page
> for what reason? According to Snit, to show Macslut something Snit
> claimed Macslut already knew... about how to remove widgets. Snit claims
> this, yet, that web page said it could not be done. In other words,
> Snit's f*cked in the head, as usual;)
You are lying, Steve, about what I said. Go figure. The page in question
does not even discuss how to remove widgets... so how could it have been
posted to show anyone how to do so? Really, Steve, if you are going to lie
about me - and you are - at least try to make the lies believable.
The facts are easy to understand:
MacSlut indicated he knew how to remove widgets and figured it was a matter
of intelligence.
I disagreed, I stated technical competence was more important - and showed
him why... Apple's web page would lead an intelligent person astray.
You, Tim Adams, and Wally are too stupid to figure that out.
You, Tim Adams, and Wally all try to defend Tim's ignorance about the tilde.
Oh well. You are all moronic lying assholes. I can accept that.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
Snit
You are babbling again, Wally... and failing to change reality. The facts:
* Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
* Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
* Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
humiliation from the above points.
By all means, Wally, keep humiliating yourself as you deny reality.
--
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The path "~/users/username/library/widget" is not common on any OS
€ The term "all widgets" does not specify a specific subgroup of widgets
Snit
* Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
* Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
* Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
humiliation from the above points.
As long as you deny these facts, Wally, you are merely humiliating yourself.
And proving me right about you. Keep on doing so... it amuses me.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-36BAB5....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/3/06 6:12 PM:
>
> > In article
> > <teadams$2$0$0$3-0C984E.19...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> > Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <C147E805.613DD%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> >> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> >>> C148AC6D.1A71C%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/06 9:10 AM:
> >>>
> >>>> The topic was expanded to encompass "all widgets" by *you* Snit!
> >>>
> >>> Incorrect. The topic was the auto-installed widgets.
> >>
> >> something Apple's web page NEVER mentioned.
> >
> > Unlike the other Apple web page that Snit himself brought forth... the
> > one that did mention they were referencing auto installed widgets. This
> > is all a side issue anyway. Snit pointed to that first Apple web page
> > for what reason? According to Snit, to show Macslut something Snit
> > claimed Macslut already knew... about how to remove widgets. Snit claims
> > this, yet, that web page said it could not be done. In other words,
> > Snit's f*cked in the head, as usual;)
>
> You are lying, Steve, about what I said.
Prove I was lying and not just mistaken about what you said. You say SO
many things... often contradictory, that you really shouldn't expect
anyone to be remember all your lies.. uh... positions.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Are that you have given up any semblance of reasoned argument as expected!
And that you used to be able to last much longer, this exchange was barely
worth the effort I put in, I may have felt cheated had it not been for the
fact that the most damning evidence against you came from your own posts!
LOL!
--
"My mistake here is one I have repeatedly made"-Snit
Snit
>> You are babbling again, Wally... and failing to change reality. The facts:
>>
>> * Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets when
>> the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
>> * Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
>> * Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
>> humiliation from the above points.
>>
>> By all means, Wally, keep humiliating yourself as you deny reality.
>
> Are that you have given up any semblance of reasoned argument as expected!
I have supported each of those facts extensively.
The first:
I have pointed to my post. In it, one clearly sees where I make
a reference to how the method of how to remove widgets, a method
both MacSlut and I knew, was not a matter of intelligence, but a
matter of technical competence. I pointed to an Apple article
that referenced the widgets in question as support (the article
also reference other widgets). Tim Adams responded by talking
about off-topic widgets and was corrected by no less than two
people
The second:
I have provided massive evidence on this one - many, many
quotes were Tim used the tilde incorrectly, insisted others
did, etc.
The third:
Still happening to this day. Tim just cannot admit he made a
mistake...
So, Wally, which of those points do you think is not supported fully? LOL!
>
> And that you used to be able to last much longer, this exchange was barely
> worth the effort I put in, I may have felt cheated had it not been for the
> fact that the most damning evidence against you came from your own posts!
> LOL!
>
> --
> "My mistake here is one I have repeatedly made"-Snit
>
Gee, not only do you spew lies in your text, your very .sig is a lie - you
quoted Carroll and attributed the comments to me. Oh well, I never said you
were not a liar, in fact, I have pointed out that you are. Thanks for
proving me correct about you. Again.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
looked at all widgets."-Snit
As Tim responded directly to your post that you admit concerned "all
widgets" how exactly was any discussion about widgets off topic whether they
be pre installed or auto installed?
Had you not wanted the discussion to evolve into a debate about "all
widgets" then you should have tried to keep your posts on the specific topic
at hand....you didnąt, and now we see the result is you blaming Tim for
something that your own post achieved i.e. an expansion of the topic to
encompass "all widgets" *that* is the reality of the situation, and even
though the proof is all there in plain sight you are unable to accept
it...no great surprise from you really is it Snit?
> * Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
BS!
> * Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
> humiliation from the above points.
I have yet to see anyone humiliated by what you refer to as *facts* Snit at
any time this is no exception!
> As long as you deny these facts, Wally, you are merely humiliating yourself.
See what I mean about your *facts*? LOL
> And proving me right about you. Keep on doing so... it amuses me.
--
Snit
>> * Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
>> when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
>
> "In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed to an Apple tech doc that
> looked at all widgets."-Snit
You have quoted me saying this in the past. And look at how you
misinterpret it... still:
> As Tim responded directly to your post that you admit concerned "all
> widgets" how exactly was any discussion about widgets off topic whether they
> be pre installed or auto installed?
See. You still are a moron.
The topic was A.
I referenced an article that talked about A. It also talked about B, but
that was not relevant to the conversation.
Tim Adams talked about B.
Tim Adams changed the topic and was corrected by no less than 2 people.
Hard for you to swallow, I know, because he is a co-troll of yours, but it
is amusing to see you repeatedly humiliate yourself in your attempts to
defend him. Damned hilarious, really. You and Steve Carroll will defend
Tim Adams and his lies. And, by doing so, you, prove me right about you and
your lack of honor. It is wonderful to watch.
Read your below BS:
> Had you not wanted the discussion to evolve into a debate about "all
> widgets" then you should have tried to keep your posts on the specific topic
> at hand....you didnąt, and now we see the result is you blaming Tim for
> something that your own post achieved i.e. an expansion of the topic to
> encompass "all widgets" *that* is the reality of the situation, and even
> though the proof is all there in plain sight you are unable to accept
> it...no great surprise from you really is it Snit?
LOL! Can't even you appreciate the humor of your BS? I mean, really... Tim
gets confused, changes the topic, spews off and shows he does not know what
the tilde means, and you jump up and down to defend the moron... all because
he is in your little trolling party.
Come on, Wally, even you have to laugh at yourself over that... LOL! I sure
know I am laughing at you...
>> * Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
>
> BS!
Well, Wally, did you think your exclamation point altered the facts? Maybe
you do... but guess what, it did not. The facts remain the same:
Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
Keep in mind, Wally, this has been *very* extensively supported. From a
past post:
----------
Proof of Tim Adams' ignorance of what the tilde means:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e4d70b3f9e925304>
"YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the
name of the hard drive only."
Note that Tim admits that he "stated" the tilde "indicated the name of the
hard drive only". He is, of course, wrong. In reference to his bizarre
path "~/users/username/library/widget" he ignorantly claimed "It DOES EXISE
IF you had installed (automatically) the malware widget that started the
rage." Please note, no such path is created by *any* standard procedure on
a Mac. I see no other explanation as to why Tim would think so other than
his ignorance about what the tilde meant. Tim, of course, denies this, as
does Wally. Their excuses, however, are laughably dishonest and absurd.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/077366e28cacfd65>
"Gee, they all support me and the location. Hard drive (or in
their case ~) /library/widget. NOT the
~/users/username/library/widget as at least one other
person said, and you agreed with a day or so ago."
Note how Tim ignorantly references the hard drive as being shown with the
tilde and makes the incorrect assumption that the articles support his
error. They do not; each of the articles used the tilde correctly. Tim not
only was ignorant of what the tilde meant, he was not knowledgeable enough
to figure out his error based on the context of the articles. That, along
with other evidence, completely smacks down Wally's BS claim that Tim was
making some translation or whatever... Tim was spewing off and proving that
even when multiple articles provided context he could not figure out what
the tilde meant.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8950b4ada0446ed>
"With ~ equal to the name of my hard drive, I locate ALL of the
widgets. With it equal to harddrive/user/username/library there IS
NO directory called widget UNLESS you've installed the malware
widget or another self installed widget.
As such, when the articles YOU directed me to indicated that widgets
were at ~/library/widgets THE ARTICLES WERE USING THE ~ AS THE NAME
OF THE HARD DRIVE AND NOT THE FULL PATH
harddrive/user/username/library"
Note how Tim starts... by ignorantly claiming the tilde was equal to the
name of his hard drive... which it was not - not unless Tim went far out of
his way to make his machine very non-standard. He again references the
articles and ignorantly claims that they were using the tilde to mean the
hard drive and not the user's directory. Tim clearly and unambiguously lays
his ignorance out for all to see... though Wally chooses to be blind and
stupid. The pathetic part is Tim calls those that do not agree with his
ignorant position idiots... he also claims that he has seen it used in
several ways, though Tim never was able to find a single other example of
anyone making the same mistake he repeatedly made.
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/17ffa5a5b8fd9796>
Until the widget folder is created at
users/username/library/widgets, why would O'Reilly and others direct
you to a non-existing location with their ~/library/widgets IF as
you claim, the ~ means user/username?
Note how Tim lies and claims I disagree with the fact that the Widgets
folder in the user directory is not created until it is needed - a claim Tim
*never* backed up because he is lying. Tim again questions why the articles
would point to the path - he does not understand when and how it is created
and still wants to believe they are not pointing to the path in the user's
folder - as they clearly and unambiguously were. Tim was ignorant and, not
knowing how to react when his ignorance was pointed out, Tim lied.
Repeatedly. He and Wally have not been able to stop themselves from lying
since then. Heck, Tim still posts derogatory comments about me in his every
post - a fact he tries to distance himself from and blame his computer,
after all, he says, since .sig files are automatically placed in messages he
feels he should not be held accountable for his despicable and desperate
behavior.
There simply is no reasonable doubt that Tim Adams was ignorant about what
the tilde meant. Tim will *never* admit to this; nor will Wally, Steve
Carroll, or the other trolls in their "herd". They defend each other no
matter how dishonorable they must sink to acting. It is just what they do -
though I do hope that some day they learn to take responsibility for their
actions and be true adults.
----------
>> * Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
>> humiliation from the above points.
>
> I have yet to see anyone humiliated by what you refer to as *facts* Snit at
> any time this is no exception!
Hmmm, another attempt by Wally to change the facts. Let's see... nope, no
dice... the facts remain the same:
Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
humiliation from the above points.
Gee, Wally, better luck next time... until then, though, you have not yet
altered reality. Hint: you never will. The facts will stay the same:
* Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
* Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
* Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
humiliation from the above points.
But, Wally, I will thank you for proving me right about how badly you will
humiliate yourself to try to defend your co-troll. It is amusing.
>
>> As long as you deny these facts, Wally, you are merely humiliating yourself.
>
> See what I mean about your *facts*? LOL
>
>> And proving me right about you. Keep on doing so... it amuses me.
And you just keep on proving me right. And you will keep doing so... until
I grow bored and ignore you on this subject. Face it, no matter what BS you
spew you cannot change the facts.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C1496A28.1A82E%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/06 10:39 PM:
>
>>> You are babbling again, Wally... and failing to change reality. The facts:
>>>
>>> * Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
>>> when
>>> the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
>>> * Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
>>> * Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
>>> humiliation from the above points.
>>>
>>> By all means, Wally, keep humiliating yourself as you deny reality.
>>
>> Are that you have given up any semblance of reasoned argument as expected!
>
> I have supported each of those facts extensively.
>
> The first:
> I have pointed to my post. In it, one clearly sees where I make
> a reference to how the method of how to remove widgets, a method
> both MacSlut and I knew, was not a matter of intelligence, but a
> matter of technical competence. I pointed to an Apple article
> that referenced the widgets in question as support (the article
> also reference other widgets). Tim Adams responded by talking
> about off-topic widgets and was corrected by no less than two
> people
You have also admitted previously that your post concerned "all widgets" why
have you chosen not to mention that here?
The answer is obvious and that is that Tim could not possibly be off topic
because he was responding to a post from you that expanded the debate to
include "all widgets" as you have admitted to doing...
"In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed to an Apple tech doc that
looked at all widgets."-Snit
The fact that others failed to notice how you expanded the topic is of no
concern to me, the fact is that Tim did notice and responded appropriately!
> The second:
> I have provided massive evidence on this one - many, many
> quotes were Tim used the tilde incorrectly, insisted others
> did, etc.
I have already offered a more realistic scenario concerning those quotes in
a previous thread!
> The third:
> Still happening to this day. Tim just cannot admit he made a
> mistake...
Because in my view there was none, not from Tim anyway...It certainly was a
mistake on your part to expand the topic from a specific group of widgets to
one concerning "all widgets"!
> So, Wally, which of those points do you think is not supported fully? LOL!
>>
>> And that you used to be able to last much longer, this exchange was barely
>> worth the effort I put in, I may have felt cheated had it not been for the
>> fact that the most damning evidence against you came from your own posts!
>> LOL!
>>
>> --
>> "My mistake here is one I have repeatedly made"-Snit
>>
> Gee, not only do you spew lies in your text, your very .sig is a lie - you
> quoted Carroll and attributed the comments to me.
Really? Shall we put that to the test Snit?
Does that still appear to be a quote from Steve?
Your *facts* and reality just never seem to agree do they Snit? ROTFL!
> Oh well, I never said you
> were not a liar, in fact, I have pointed out that you are. Thanks for
> proving me correct about you. Again.
Once again you get shafted by the truth, don't you ever get tired of that
happening to you Snit?
--
"And I cry when there is nobody who understands that."- Snit
Steven de Mena
Take it somewhere else or mark it off topic ("OT: ").
Steve
Snit
>> I have supported each of those facts extensively.
>>
>> The first:
>> I have pointed to my post. In it, one clearly sees where I make
>> a reference to how the method of how to remove widgets, a method
>> both MacSlut and I knew, was not a matter of intelligence, but a
>> matter of technical competence. I pointed to an Apple article
>> that referenced the widgets in question as support (the article
>> also reference other widgets). Tim Adams responded by talking
>> about off-topic widgets and was corrected by no less than two
>> people
>
> You have also admitted previously that your post concerned "all widgets" why
> have you chosen not to mention that here?
Um, Wally, the *article* I pointed to "concerned" all widgets. Again, since
you are slow:
The topic was A.
I referenced an article that talked about A. It also talked
about B, but that was not relevant to the conversation.
Tim Adams talked about B.
I know... that concept is far, far too complex for you... or, more likely,
you just will pretend so in order to try to defend your co-troll Tim Adams.
Ok. You are proving me correct about you. I can handle being proved
correct... thanks!
Look at your babbling based on your above lie:
> The answer is obvious and that is that Tim could not possibly be off topic
> because he was responding to a post from you that expanded the debate to
> include "all widgets" as you have admitted to doing...
>
> "In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed to an Apple tech doc that
> looked at all widgets."-Snit
>
> The fact that others failed to notice how you expanded the topic is of no
> concern to me, the fact is that Tim did notice and responded appropriately!
Your lies are funny. Tee hee.
>> The second:
>> I have provided massive evidence on this one - many, many
>> quotes were Tim used the tilde incorrectly, insisted others
>> did, etc.
>
> I have already offered a more realistic scenario concerning those quotes in
> a previous thread!
Again, since you are so slow:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e4d70b3f9e925304>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/077366e28cacfd65>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8950b4ada0446ed>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/17ffa5a5b8fd9796>
By all means, Wally, try to find a way to explain away Tim's ignorance.
LOL! Oh, that's right... your "translation" bullshit. Yeah, Tim was just
"translating" reality into his lies. Whatever.
>> The third:
>> Still happening to this day. Tim just cannot admit he made a
>> mistake...
>
> Because in my view there was none, not from Tim anyway...It certainly was a
> mistake on your part to expand the topic from a specific group of widgets to
> one concerning "all widgets"!
Ok, either your view is pathetically stupid or you are lying. Who cares
which?
>> So, Wally, which of those points do you think is not supported fully? LOL!
>>>
>>> And that you used to be able to last much longer, this exchange was barely
>>> worth the effort I put in, I may have felt cheated had it not been for the
>>> fact that the most damning evidence against you came from your own posts!
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> --
>>> "My mistake here is one I have repeatedly made"-Snit
>>>
>> Gee, not only do you spew lies in your text, your very .sig is a lie - you
>> quoted Carroll and attributed the comments to me.
>
> Really? Shall we put that to the test Snit?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nk22x
>
> Does that still appear to be a quote from Steve?
>
> Your *facts* and reality just never seem to agree do they Snit? ROTFL!
My mistake... I was thinking of the quote authored by Steve that you
frequently attribute to me. I skimmed your post and made an error there...
see, Wally, when I make an error I admit to it. Will you be a man and admit
to your errors? You are in error when you deny the facts:
* Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
* Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
* Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
humiliation from the above points.
>> Oh well, I never said you
>> were not a liar, in fact, I have pointed out that you are. Thanks for
>> proving me correct about you. Again.
>
> Once again you get shafted by the truth, don't you ever get tired of that
> happening to you Snit?
Hey, Wally, despite your babbling the facts remain the same:
* Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
* Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
* Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
humiliation from the above points.
Funny how you cannot change reality with your babbling, Wally. Well, funny
for me. Clearly quite annoying for you. LOL! Tell me again how you
concluded Tim Adams was not ignorant of what the tilde meant. Please! It
is such a funny joke!
Snit
kL-dnX6xcu4oyb7Y...@comcast.com on 10/3/06 11:29 PM:
> WHAT the fuck does this debate have to do with Mac advocacy?
>
> Take it somewhere else or mark it off topic ("OT: ").
>
> Steve
The topic was, originally, about how in past versions of OS X there was a
flaw with auto-installed widgets that lead to the possibility of malware.
MacSlut asked "how many brain cells" it would take to fix the problem, and I
pointed him to an Apple article that lead people astray... commenting on how
this showed it was not a matter of intelligence but technical competence.
Tim Adams jumped in talking about pre-installed widgets, and when his error
was pointed out to him - kindly and by multiple people - Tim made it clear
he was not only lost on the topic, but that he thought the tilde in a path
meant "the hard drive only".
Wally and Carroll, being pathetic morons who co-troll with Tim, have been
trying to alter reality to make Tim look less stupid. They failed.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steven de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> stated in post
> kL-dnX6xcu4oyb7Y...@comcast.com on 10/3/06 11:29 PM:
>
> > WHAT the fuck does this debate have to do with Mac advocacy?
> >
> > Take it somewhere else or mark it off topic ("OT: ").
> >
> > Steve
>
> The topic was, originally, about how in past versions of OS X there was a
> flaw with auto-installed widgets
I'd like to see you back up that claim snit as before 10.4, (the current os when
the discussion began) Apple's OS didn't support widgets, or is this yet another
thing you didn't know?
> that lead to the possibility of malware.
> MacSlut asked "how many brain cells" it would take to fix the problem, and I
> pointed him to an Apple article that lead people astray... commenting on how
> this showed it was not a matter of intelligence but technical competence.
A distortion of what your 'ouch' clearly implied.
>
> Tim Adams jumped in talking
and proved snit an idiot and he's been dragging the topic up every couple of
months ever since.
~snipped more babbling by the resident troll michael glasser.
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C14974A0.1A844%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/06 11:24 PM:
>
<Snits usual smoke screen cleared>
>>>> And that you used to be able to last much longer, this exchange was barely
>>>> worth the effort I put in, I may have felt cheated had it not been for the
>>>> fact that the most damning evidence against you came from your own posts!
>>>> LOL!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "My mistake here is one I have repeatedly made"-Snit
>>>>
>>> Gee, not only do you spew lies in your text, your very .sig is a lie - you
>>> quoted Carroll and attributed the comments to me.
>>
>> Really? Shall we put that to the test Snit?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/nk22x
>>
>> Does that still appear to be a quote from Steve?
>>
>> Your *facts* and reality just never seem to agree do they Snit? ROTFL!
>
> My mistake...
Of course it was your mistake! this whole debacle has arisen because of your
mistakes....as usual!
> I was thinking of the quote authored by Steve that you
> frequently attribute to me.
Try doing less thinking and more reading Snit, after all it's not as though
your thinking ever achieves anything, whereas if you try real hard to
understand what you read *that* may eventually pay dividends!
> I skimmed your post and made an error there...
> see, Wally, when I make an error I admit to it.
You skimmed my post! good grief Snit the quote was only a couple of lines up
from where you posted your lies!
Look again Snit..
--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> "My mistake here is one I have repeatedly made"-Snit
>>>>
>>> Gee, not only do you spew lies in your text, your very .sig is a lie - you
>>> quoted Carroll and attributed the comments to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------
How could you possibly have missed that?
Clearly this is a good example of why so many have suggested in the past
that you're reading and comprehension skills are way out of sync Snit!
Your feeble excuse for calling me a liar doesnšt even come close to being
believable? LOL!
At least we can finally dispense with the idea that you have any idea at all
about acting honorably.
> Will you be a man and admit
> to your errors? You are in error when you deny the facts:
Your alleged facts Snit!
And we have just had a prime example of how you arrive at them, for the most
part there is not a thread of truth to them!
You only have to realize that you have admitted to expanding the topic to
include "all widgets" to see that your accusations that Tim in response to
your post changed the topic is bigotry pure and simple, or in your case
mostly 'simple'!
<Snits continued bigotry snipped>
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C1496ECE.1A830%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/06 10:59 PM:
>
>>> * Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
>>> when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
>>
>> "In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed to an Apple tech doc that
>> looked at all widgets."-Snit
>
> You have quoted me saying this in the past. And look at how you
> misinterpret it... still:
>
>> As Tim responded directly to your post that you admit concerned "all
>> widgets" how exactly was any discussion about widgets off topic whether they
>> be pre installed or auto installed?
>
> See. You still are a moron.
So lets clear this point up once and for all, when you said ....
"In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed to an Apple tech doc that
looked at all widgets."-Snit
...And Tim responded to your post and directly addressed the points
suggested in the article that you introduced in that post, that lets not
forget according to you "looked at all widgets", somehow again according to
you it was Tim that changed the topic even though the topic had already been
expanded thanks solely to you introducing the article.
Hilarious!
> The topic was A.
> I referenced an article that talked about A. It also talked about B, but
> that was not relevant to the conversation.
> Tim Adams talked about B.
Tim's comments were pertinent to your post that introduced B into the
discussion! no amount of denials will change that pivotal fact Snit!
> Tim Adams changed the topic and was corrected by no less than 2 people.
How could he have changed the topic as the topic of his post was to address
the erroneous information that appeared to be presented by the article that
you introduced?
> Hard for you to swallow, I know, because he is a co-troll of yours, but it
> is amusing to see you repeatedly humiliate yourself in your attempts to
> defend him. Damned hilarious, really. You and Steve Carroll will defend
> Tim Adams and his lies. And, by doing so, you, prove me right about you and
> your lack of honor. It is wonderful to watch.
>
> Read your below BS:
>
>> Had you not wanted the discussion to evolve into a debate about "all
>> widgets" then you should have tried to keep your posts on the specific topic
>> at hand....you didnšt, and now we see the result is you blaming Tim for
>> something that your own post achieved i.e. an expansion of the topic to
>> encompass "all widgets" *that* is the reality of the situation, and even
>> though the proof is all there in plain sight you are unable to accept
>> it...no great surprise from you really is it Snit?
>
> LOL! Can't even you appreciate the humor of your BS? I mean, really... Tim
> gets confused, changes the topic, spews off and shows he does not know what
> the tilde means, and you jump up and down to defend the moron... all because
> he is in your little trolling party.
If you really believed any of that you would simply have shown where Tim's
comments were not relevant to your post...the post that he was responding
to! You have never been able to do that because as far as your post was
concerned he was spot on accurate in the comments that he made concerning
the information that appeared to be contained in it! The fact that his post
was not in strict adherence to the OP is immaterial as it was your post he
was responding to not the OP, and by you introducing an article that was
concerned with all widgets the OP's topic had been expanded by you by then
anyway.
Frankly Tim is in a win/win situation all thanks to you for failing to
comprehend what you were posting..........again!
<obligatory Snit smoke screen snipped>
--
"Would eating a banana or sniffing a flower make it all go away?" -Snit
Steven de Mena
"Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote in message
news:C149A28F.1A877%wa...@wally.world.net...
"Wally"....
*PLONK*
Wally
"Steven de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> "Wally"....
>
> *PLONK*
4/10, a decent sized snip would have got you a 7, just doing it without
needing the attention would have been worth a 9.
Snit
1:57 AM:
>> The topic was, originally, about how in past versions of OS X there was a
>> flaw with auto-installed widgets
>
> I'd like to see you back up that claim snit as before 10.4, (the current os
> when the discussion began) Apple's OS didn't support widgets, or is this yet
> another thing you didn't know?
Ah, good! Now we can talk about OS X and pull this thread back on topic...
Do you now deny that in past versions of OS X, before the current one, that
there was a malware risk associated with auto-installed widgets. That was
the topic of the thread in question, Tim, yet you show no understanding of
it.
Apple has since corrected that flaw, if you care.
>> that lead to the possibility of malware.
>> MacSlut asked "how many brain cells" it would take to fix the problem, and I
>> pointed him to an Apple article that lead people astray... commenting on how
>> this showed it was not a matter of intelligence but technical competence.
>
> A distortion of what your 'ouch' clearly implied.
Tim, no matter how much you insist otherwise, my comments shall mean what
they meant. You do not get to alter reality with your words. As I list in
my facts that piss off trolls:
€ The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
It is amazing how much that pisses you off. By the way, your co-troll Wally
actually looked up how the word is used - and found it is used exactly as I
used it:
---------
> Ouch...
>
> An expression of disappointment.
> Used to express sudden pain or annoyance.
> Used as an exclamation expressing sudden pain or dismay.
> Used to express sudden pain or displeasure.
>
> Now if you wish to claim that you were disappointed, annoyed, dismayed, or
> displeased about something that you now say you knew to be false all the
> time then go right ahead. LOL
Gee, Wally - you mean you *finally* figured out I was "disappointed,
annoyed, dismayed, or displeased" by Apple giving information that was false
(as I, MacSlut, and Daniel clearly knew). By publishing that incorrect
information Apple made the "fix" less a matter of intelligence (assuming an
intelligent person would look up info) and more a matter of technical
competence (being able to figure out the problem yourself). Gee, just like
I said in the post in question.
The funny thing is you are tying to defend Tim Adams by claiming otherwise.
LOL!
---------
Is it not funny how Wally ended up supporting me in his attempt to support
you. I say: Yes! It is very, very funny.
>> Tim Adams jumped in talking about pre-installed widgets, and when his error
>> was pointed out to him - kindly and by multiple people - Tim made it clear he
>> was not only lost on the topic, but that he thought the tilde in a path meant
>> "the hard drive only".
>>
>> Wally and Carroll, being pathetic morons who co-troll with Tim, have been
>> trying to alter reality to make Tim look less stupid. They failed.
No comment by you, Tim. In fact, you snipped and ran, as is your habit.
Whatever.
>
> and proved snit an idiot and he's been dragging the topic up every couple of
> months ever since.
>
> ~snipped more babbling by the resident troll michael glasser.
Gee, Tim, I keep pointing out your trolling, lying, snipping, running, and
other pathetic games. Why don't you whine a little more?
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Snit
You now measure trolls against your own trolling? Whatever.
In the end, however, the facts stay the same:
* Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
* Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
* Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
humiliation from the above points.
The funny thing is you will *never* admit reality is correct. Very funny.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C149DD46.1A88E%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/4/06 6:51 AM:
>
>> On 4/10/06 5:52 PM, in article Dd2dnc6cZIvwGb7Y...@comcast.com,
>> "Steven de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> "Wally"....
>>>
>>> *PLONK*
>>
>> 4/10, a decent sized snip would have got you a 7, just doing it without
>> needing the attention would have been worth a 9.
>>
> You now measure trolls against your own trolling? Whatever.
If I were to do that there would be nothing to measure!
> In the end, however, the facts stay the same:
>
> * Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
> when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
No confusion is evident in Tim's post!
> * Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
I believe that he did!
> * Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
> humiliation from the above points.
As no humiliation can be demonstrated clearly again you are wrong!
> The funny thing is you will *never* admit reality is correct. Very funny.
I will always admit that reality is correct and in this instance reality
shows you are wrong! why wouldnšt I admit that?
--
"Essentially any unshielded detonation of a nuclear weapon in a city is a
BAD thing."-Snit
Snit
>> * Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
>> when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
>
> No confusion is evident in Tim's post!
>
>> * Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
>
> I believe that he did!
>
>> * Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
>> humiliation from the above points.
>
> As no humiliation can be demonstrated clearly again you are wrong!
>
Note, Wally, you have no honest response to those facts... nor do you have
any reasoned comments to the volumes of support I have posted in relation to
those facts.
Another fact is clear: you, Wally, will do anything to try to support your
co-troll. You do not care about facts. You do not care to be honest. You
do not care how much you humiliate yourself. To you, Wally, it is about
forming absurd trolling coalitions to go after those who are honest and
honorable and have pointed out your lies, trolling, deceit, and other such
silliness.
I wanted to make the facts of Tim's actions clear - and I have... but I also
wanted to make it very clear what you are - and clearly I succeeded in that.
I thank you for doing as I wished and showing your true pathetic colors so
boldly. Granted, Wally, I would *prefer* if you were to alter your ways and
learn to be honest and honorable, but that is something that I cannot
manipulate you to do.
You will remain the dishonest scumbag that you are... one who, as far as I
know, *still* insists that incest and sex are "synonymous". You are a
pathetic pervert and a sad, sad troll who feels the need to team up with the
likes of Carroll and Adams. So be it.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steven de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> stated in post
> kL-dnX6xcu4oyb7Y...@comcast.com on 10/3/06 11:29 PM:
>
> > WHAT the fuck does this debate have to do with Mac advocacy?
> >
> > Take it somewhere else or mark it off topic ("OT: ").
> >
> > Steve
>
> The topic was, originally,
Originally... like 1-1/2 years ago?
> about how in past versions of OS X there was a
> flaw with auto-installed widgets that lead to the possibility of malware.
> MacSlut asked "how many brain cells" it would take to fix the problem, and I
> pointed him to an Apple article that lead people astray... commenting on how
> this showed it was not a matter of intelligence but technical competence.
Yes... and, as was clear, Macslut obviously already knew about the
requisite technical competence. He undoubtedly also knew that "mere
intelligence" alone was not going to get the job done. All this was
true, yet, here, you are once again admitting that you were telling
Macslut something he obviously "already knew"... a thing you claimed you
never did. You lied... again.
You also failed to explain why readers of your post should have been
able to read your mind when you referenced a webpage that, as far as
"widget removal" was concerned, *only* talked about widgets *not* being
able to be removed. This made no sense at all upon first reading. It
wasn't until you subsequently explained what was going on in your glue
fumed cranial cavity that it was clear just how badly you fucked up.
Snit
> In article <C148A59D.614E1%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steven de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> stated in post
>> kL-dnX6xcu4oyb7Y...@comcast.com on 10/3/06 11:29 PM:
>>
>>> WHAT the fuck does this debate have to do with Mac advocacy?
>>>
>>> Take it somewhere else or mark it off topic ("OT: ").
>>>
>>> Steve
>>
>> The topic was, originally,
>
>
> Originally... like 1-1/2 years ago?
>
>
>> about how in past versions of OS X there was a
>> flaw with auto-installed widgets that lead to the possibility of malware.
>> MacSlut asked "how many brain cells" it would take to fix the problem, and I
>> pointed him to an Apple article that lead people astray... commenting on how
>> this showed it was not a matter of intelligence but technical competence.
>
>
> Yes... and, as was clear, Macslut obviously already knew about the
> requisite technical competence. He undoubtedly also knew that "mere
> intelligence" alone was not going to get the job done. All this was
> true, yet, here, you are once again admitting that you were telling
> Macslut something he obviously "already knew"... a thing you claimed you
> never did. You lied... again.
Please note, Steve, your lies are of no value. As stated, above, MacSlut
talked about how it was a matter of intelligence (how many brain cells are
needed...), I pointed out that it was not just intelligence, but also
technical competence.
You, Wally, and Adams have been trolling on that for what... you claim 1 1/2
years! Wow... in one and a half years not one of the three of you has been
able to stop your lying and trolling over this. That is pathetic.
Not as pathetic, mind you, as your time spend lying about how you refuted my
argument against Bush: <http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/>. That was
the debate that got you so mad you started following me around lying,
trolling, flaming, and otherwise humiliating yourself. Even now, Steve, you
cannot admit you utterly and completely failed in your effort to refute that
argument ... which would not be a big deal if you could handle your failure
like an adult. You can't - hence the reason you lie about me in your
*every* post. That is what this is all about for you - trying to get
revenge for my pointing out your dishonesty and your incompetence. Oh well,
even you admit you are a lying moronic "asshole". So be it. You are.
>
> You also failed to explain why readers of your post should have been
> able to read your mind when you referenced a webpage that, as far as
> "widget removal" was concerned, *only* talked about widgets *not* being
> able to be removed. This made no sense at all upon first reading. It
> wasn't until you subsequently explained what was going on in your glue
> fumed cranial cavity that it was clear just how badly you fucked up.
You mean, gasp!, when Tim got confused I ... oh no!... explained things to
you correctly and quickly. Keep in mind, however, that I was not the only
one to correct Tim; clearly others followed me. You, on the other hand,
have admitted your reading comprehension skills were not up to the task.
Ok. Let's assume I was not clear enough for an admitted moron such as
yourself. OK. So? I have repeatedly explained the post to you. If I did
not explain myself well enough for a moron such as yourself the first time,
so be it, but now I have explained things very, very clearly ... and you
still are too dense to get it. OK, now we know you are *that* stupid.
Is there anything else you want to share other than how stupid you are?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C1496ECE.1A830%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/3/06 10:59 PM:
>
> >> * Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
> >> when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
> >
> > "In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed to an Apple tech doc that
> > looked at all widgets."-Snit
>
> You have quoted me saying this in the past.
Yes he has, and you've been unable to address it with neither honor nor
honesty. You sure wrote a lot of words here to say... well... nothing.
(snip a veritable universe of glue fumes by Snit)
Steve Carroll
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> My mistake... I was thinking of the quote authored by Steve that you
> frequently attribute to me. I skimmed your post and made an error there...
> see, Wally, when I make an error I admit to it.
You generally don't admit to all your MANY errors, in fact, you admit to
probably only about one tenth of one percent of them. It's one of the
biggest reasons you are called a liar, troll or worse and have been kf'd
as often as you are by as many people as have done these things to you.
Snit
Gee, Steve, with all those babbling accusation it almost sounds like you are
ready to admit to your dishonest .sig.
Oh, wait... only if you had an honest bone in your body. You *will* keep
lying... you are that predictable. In the end, though, the argument that
got you so pissed off will remain as it is - with you absolutely failing to
find a reasoned refutation:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/>
Funny how much that pissed you off. Why can't you just admit to your
mistakes? LOL!
--
€ There is no known malware that attacks OS X in the wild
€ There are two general types of PCs: Macs and PCs (odd naming conventions!)
€ Mac OS X 10.x.x is a version of Mac OS
Snit
> (snip a veritable universe of glue fumes by Snit)
>
> --
> Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD - Snit
> Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
> like myself - Snit
> I am a bigger liar than Steve - Snit
Hey, Steve, you have not recently mentioned if you still fantasize about me
emailing your unmarried "wife"... just curious, do you? Maybe you are
cheating on her *again* and do not even care.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
An absurd position to take... which is why you are taking it. If Macslut
"already knew" how to remove the widgets (as you have continually
claimed he did) then he was obviously referring to intelligence with
respect to what was required for removal (what you are labeling
"technical competence") and not "mere intelligence". Only *you* assumed
he meant "mere intelligence" when he made his "brain cells" comment...
but then, you have a reason to do so, don't you. Apparently, you don't
see how ridiculous you're coming off pushing this incredibly lame
attempt at an excuse.
> > You also failed to explain why readers of your post should have been
> >able to read your mind when you referenced a webpage that, as far as
> >"widget removal" was concerned, *only* talked about widgets *not* being
> >able to be removed. This made no sense at all upon first reading. It
> >wasn't until you subsequently explained what was going on in your glue
> >fumed cranial cavity that it was clear just how badly you fucked up.
> You mean, gasp!, when Tim got confused I ... oh no!... explained things to
> you correctly and quickly. Keep in mind, however, that I was not the only
> one to correct Tim; clearly others followed me. You, on the other hand,
> have admitted your reading comprehension skills were not up to the task.
Reality shows that no one but you pointed to a web page totally out of
context of the position you subsequently *claimed* you were taking. No
one else "followed" you in that direction... nor did they fail to
provide contextual clues as to what they were trying to say, you know,
the way you did with your "Ouch!". As far as reading comprehension goes,
you presented Macslut with a webpage whose content you agreed with (why
else show the page?), a page that stated the widgets could *not* be
removed. Your problem? You cannot prove you didn't agree with the
content of the page when you pointed to it. We are left to take your
word after the fact... your word and a lame excuse that Macslut thought
it was "mere intelligence" that enabled him to remove widgets. If
Macslut could accomplish the feat (your claim) then he was well aware of
what it required. Your position here is absurd in the extreme.
Additionally, and the real nail in your coffin... is that you have been
unable to provide any evidence that you knew any differently prior to
that discussion, despite your warning Tim that you could produce
"earlier posts" ... a thing you have *never* been able to do even though
I have asked you repeatedly. You wrote to Tim:
"Er? I was in reference to the fact that Apple *states* that... not
that it could not be done."
Up to the point that you wrote what you did to Daniel, (where Tim then
replied to Daniel) exactly *where* were you in reference to that, Snit?
Are you claiming that your "OUCH!" made it clear for the reader?
This is a flat out lie on your part... and a very poor one, at that.
You continued with:
"Did you really miss that?"
Of course he missed it! You never referenced it anywhere like you are
pretending you did. Feel free to show this reference you claimed at any
time. And finally, you tell Tim:
"Do you need me to point you to my earlier posts where I talk about
Widgets?"
Yes, let's see these "earlier posts". I'm sure Tim is *still*
waiting... I know I am... as I have asked you several times, to no avail.
I consider this to be another lie on your part, that you never did "talk
about Widgets" with respect to removal. How come you never produced
these "earlier posts"? Yeah, that's right... because they don't exist.
Batting down your delusions is pretty boring at this point but I figured
I'd give you another chance to make a liar and a fool out of yourself
for any in csma that may have missed it.
(snip Snit's glue factory)
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-6A99D0....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/4/06 11:38 AM:
>
> > (snip a veritable universe of glue fumes by Snit)
> >
>
> Hey, Steve, you have not
... seen any answer from you about the quote Wally brought forth that
proves you a liar... again? No, I haven't, and I doubt anyone ever will.
In case Snit grows a conscience...
********
> > "In a discussion about specific widgets I pointed to an Apple tech doc that
> > looked at all widgets."-Snit
>
> You have quoted me saying this in the past.
Yes he has, and you've been unable to address it with neither honor nor
honesty. You sure wrote a lot of words here to say... well... nothing.
(snip a veritable universe of glue fumes by Snit)
*********
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-7FC3BD....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/4/06 11:43 AM:
>
> > In article <C148A487.614DF%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> My mistake... I was thinking of the quote authored by Steve that you
> >> frequently attribute to me. I skimmed your post and made an error there...
> >> see, Wally, when I make an error I admit to it.
> >
> > You generally don't admit to all your MANY errors, in fact, you admit to
> > probably only about one tenth of one percent of them. It's one of the
> > biggest reasons you are called a liar, troll or worse and have been kf'd
> > as often as you are by as many people as have done these things to you.
>
>
> Gee, Steve, with all those babbling
All those? You are the only one babbling here. Everyone knows that.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-DD2AA5.04...@news.west.earthlink.net on 10/4/06
> 1:57 AM:
>
> >> The topic was, originally, about how in past versions of OS X there was a
> >> flaw with auto-installed widgets
> >
> > I'd like to see you back up that claim snit as before 10.4, (the current os
> > when the discussion began) Apple's OS didn't support widgets, or is this
> > yet
> > another thing you didn't know?
>
> Ah, good! Now we can talk about OS X and pull this thread back on topic...
and snit avoids the question, which shows his stupidity and runs away again. So
typical.
So snit - which version of OS X were you referring to when you claimed that 'in
past versions of OS X there was a flaw with auto-installed widgets" when
previous version of OS X (remembering that OS X 10.4 WAS the current OS when
this discussion began) didn't support widgets at all? Inquiring mind want to
know.
>
> Do you now deny that in past versions of OS X, before the current one, that
> there was a malware risk associated with auto-installed widgets.
Stupid question from a stupid person. So typical of you snit. The OS in question
when the discussion started was OS X 10.4. OS's, from Apple, before that time,
didn't support Widgets.
> That was
> the topic of the thread in question, Tim, yet you show no understanding of
> it.
>
> Apple has since corrected that flaw, if you care.
With OS X 10.4.1 IIRC, but then you still haven't answered my very simple
question. Why is that? I quess my first comment (is this yet another thing you
didn't know?) was totally correct and once again your changing the topic trying
to run and hide.
~more running and hiding by the trolling michael glasser snipped.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> stated in post
> C149DD46.1A88E%wa...@wally.world.net on 10/4/06 6:51 AM:
>
> > On 4/10/06 5:52 PM, in article Dd2dnc6cZIvwGb7Y...@comcast.com,
> > "Steven de Mena" <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>
> >> "Wally"....
> >>
> >> *PLONK*
> >
> > 4/10, a decent sized snip would have got you a 7, just doing it without
> > needing the attention would have been worth a 9.
> >
> You now measure trolls against your own trolling? Whatever.
>
> In the end, however, the facts stay the same:
>
> * Tim Adams
proved snit an idiot again and snit ran away. So typical of the little troll.
~babbling snipped
Snit
Your ignorance on this is noted. I have no desire to explain the *same*
damned thing to you over and over, Steve. I get it - you are too damned
stupid to understand my post, even after it has been explained to you
repeatedly. OK. No problem - you are an admitted moron.
>
>>> You also failed to explain why readers of your post should have been
>>> able to read your mind when you referenced a webpage that, as far as
>>> "widget removal" was concerned, *only* talked about widgets *not* being
>>> able to be removed. This made no sense at all upon first reading. It
>>> wasn't until you subsequently explained what was going on in your glue
>>> fumed cranial cavity that it was clear just how badly you fucked up.
>
>> You mean, gasp!, when Tim got confused I ... oh no!... explained things to
>> you correctly and quickly. Keep in mind, however, that I was not the only
>> one to correct Tim; clearly others followed me. You, on the other hand,
>> have admitted your reading comprehension skills were not up to the task.
>
> Reality shows that no one but you pointed to a web page totally out of
> context of the position you subsequently *claimed* you were taking.
The topic was A.
I referenced an article that talked about A. It also talked
about B, but that was not relevant to the conversation.
Tim Adams talked about B.
As noted, Tim left the topic behind, as multiple people pointed out to him.
You and Wally, however, will defend your co-troll no matter how idiotic your
claims must be. OK. I get that - you, Tim, and Wally are co-trolls who
will lie for each other no matter what. So what, Steve? Do you think your
pathetic dishonesty is of value?
> No one else "followed" you in that direction... nor did they fail to provide
> contextual clues as to what they were trying to say, you know, the way you
> did with your "Ouch!". As far as reading comprehension goes, you presented
> Macslut with a webpage whose content you agreed with (why else show the
> page?), a page that stated the widgets could *not* be removed. Your problem?
> You cannot prove you didn't agree with the content of the page when you
> pointed to it. We are left to take your word after the fact... your word and
> a lame excuse that Macslut thought it was "mere intelligence" that enabled
> him to remove widgets. If Macslut could accomplish the feat (your claim)
> then he was well aware of what it required. Your position here is absurd in
> the extreme.
What part of your babbling about what I said and did do you feel has not
been fully explained to you? You are just too damned stupid to follow a
conversation, even when it is explained to you. OK, you are a moron. No
argument here.
All that babbling from you, Steve, and you cannot change the facts:
* Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
* Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
* Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
humiliation from the above points.
I welcome any *reasoned* comments. You, Steve, have made it clear you have
none.
Snit
12:58 PM:
> ~babbling snipped
And you will always snip the proof you were ignorant about what the tilde
meant:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e4d70b3f9e925304>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/077366e28cacfd65>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8950b4ada0446ed>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/17ffa5a5b8fd9796>
--
Snit
12:56 PM:
> In article <C1491B4B.61517%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
>> teadams$2$0$0$3-DD2AA5.04...@news.west.earthlink.net on 10/4/06
>> 1:57 AM:
>>
>>>> The topic was, originally, about how in past versions of OS X there was a
>>>> flaw with auto-installed widgets
>>>
>>> I'd like to see you back up that claim snit as before 10.4, (the current os
>>> when the discussion began) Apple's OS didn't support widgets, or is this
>>> yet
>>> another thing you didn't know?
>>
>> Ah, good! Now we can talk about OS X and pull this thread back on topic...
>
> and snit avoids the question, which shows his stupidity and runs away again.
> So typical.
>
> So snit - which version of OS X were you referring to when you claimed that
> 'in past versions of OS X there was a flaw with auto-installed widgets" when
> previous version of OS X (remembering that OS X 10.4 WAS the current OS when
> this discussion began) didn't support widgets at all? Inquiring mind want to
> know.
The flaw was fixed in, I believe, 10.4.1. In 10.4.0 it was there. Maybe it
was fixed in 10.4.2... I do not recall. Heck, below you make reference to
the same update!
>>
>> Do you now deny that in past versions of OS X, before the current one, that
>> there was a malware risk associated with auto-installed widgets.
>
> Stupid question from a stupid person. So typical of you snit. The OS in
> question when the discussion started was OS X 10.4. OS's, from Apple, before
> that time, didn't support Widgets.
Do you deny, Tim, that in past versions of OS X, say 10.4.0, that there was
a flaw in OS X that lead to a malware risk from auto-installed widgets?
Oh, you can only run from the question... it is all you can do. More proof
of your ignorance.
>> That was the topic of the thread in question, Tim, yet you show no
>> understanding of it.
>>
>> Apple has since corrected that flaw, if you care.
>
> With OS X 10.4.1 IIRC, but then you still haven't answered my very simple
> question. Why is that? I quess my first comment (is this yet another thing you
> didn't know?) was totally correct and once again your changing the topic
> trying to run and hide.
So you can point to the OS X update where the flaw was fixed, but you cannot
figure out if the flaw existed in versions of the OS before that. OK, you
are, again, being a moron. Got it.
>>>> that lead to the possibility of malware. MacSlut asked "how many brain
>>>> cells" it would take to fix the problem, and >>>> I pointed him to an Apple
>>>> article that lead people astray... commenting on how this showed it was not
>>>> a matter of intelligence but technical competence.
>>>>
>>> A distortion of what your 'ouch' clearly implied.
>>>
>> Tim, no matter how much you insist otherwise, my comments shall mean what
>> they meant. You do not get to alter reality with your words. As I list in
>> my facts that piss off trolls:
>>
>> € The word "ouch" is not a sure sign of agreement.
>>
>> It is amazing how much that pisses you off.
Note: no comment by Tim Adams. He cannot handle how much that one fact
pisses him off. Even today Wally and Carroll are spewing off about how they
are confused by the same fact. Oh well.
>> By the way, your co-troll Wally actually looked up how the word is used - and
>> found it is used exactly as I used it:
>>
>> ---------
>>> Ouch...
>>>
>>> An expression of disappointment.
>>> Used to express sudden pain or annoyance.
>>> Used as an exclamation expressing sudden pain or dismay.
>>> Used to express sudden pain or displeasure.
>>>
>>> Now if you wish to claim that you were disappointed, annoyed, dismayed, or
>>> displeased about something that you now say you knew to be false all the
>>> time then go right ahead. LOL
>>
>> Gee, Wally - you mean you *finally* figured out I was "disappointed, annoyed,
>> dismayed, or displeased" by Apple giving information that was false (as I,
>> MacSlut, and Daniel clearly knew). By publishing that incorrect information
>> Apple made the "fix" less a matter of intelligence (assuming an intelligent
>> person would look up info) and more a matter of technical competence (being
>> able to figure out the problem yourself). Gee, just like I said in the post
>> in question.
>>
>> The funny thing is you are tying to defend Tim Adams by claiming otherwise.
>> LOL!
>> ---------
>>
>> Is it not funny how Wally ended up supporting me in his attempt to support
>> you. I say: Yes! It is very, very funny.
Note: no comment from Tim Adams about how Wally stuck his foot in his mouth
and accidentally supported my view (which is reality).
>>
>>>> Tim Adams jumped in talking about pre-installed widgets, and when his error
>>>> was pointed out to him - kindly and by multiple people - Tim made it clear
>>>> he was not only lost on the topic, but that he thought the tilde in a path
>>>> meant "the hard drive only".
>>>>
>>>> Wally and Carroll, being pathetic morons who co-troll with Tim, have been
>>>> trying to alter reality to make Tim look less stupid. They failed.
>>
>> No comment by you, Tim. In fact, you snipped and ran, as is your habit.
>> Whatever.
Note: no comment from Tim Adams. He simple cannot face facts:
* Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
* Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
* Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
humiliation from the above points.
>>> and proved snit an idiot and he's been dragging the topic up every couple of
>>> months ever since.
>>>
>>> ~snipped more babbling by the resident troll michael glasser.
>>
>> Gee, Tim, I keep pointing out your trolling, lying, snipping, running, and
>> other pathetic games. Why don't you whine a little more?
And look! You did! LOL!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
My ignorance? LOL! Again... here is what you run from:
If Macslut "already knew" how to remove the widgets (as you have
continually claimed he did) then he was obviously referring to
intelligence with respect to what was required for removal (what you are
labeling "technical competence") and not "mere intelligence".
How do you propose to combat the basic logic there, Snit? You don't
propose to... that's why we find you trying to sidestep it altogether.
(inability to address reality by Snit noted... crap snipped)
> >>> You also failed to explain why readers of your post should have been
> >>> able to read your mind when you referenced a webpage that, as far as
> >>> "widget removal" was concerned, *only* talked about widgets *not* being
> >>> able to be removed. This made no sense at all upon first reading. It
> >>> wasn't until you subsequently explained what was going on in your glue
> >>> fumed cranial cavity that it was clear just how badly you fucked up.
> >
> >> You mean, gasp!, when Tim got confused I ... oh no!... explained things to
> >> you correctly and quickly. Keep in mind, however, that I was not the only
> >> one to correct Tim; clearly others followed me. You, on the other hand,
> >> have admitted your reading comprehension skills were not up to the task.
> >
> > Reality shows that no one but you pointed to a web page totally out of
> > context of the position you subsequently *claimed* you were taking.
>
> The topic was A.
> I referenced an article that talked about A. It also talked
> about B, but that was not relevant to the conversation.
> Tim Adams talked about B.
>
> As noted, Tim left the topic behind, as multiple people pointed out to him.
> You and Wally, however, will defend your co-troll no matter how idiotic your
> claims must be. OK. I get that - you, Tim, and Wally are co-trolls who
> will lie for each other no matter what. So what, Steve? Do you think your
> pathetic dishonesty is of value?
The topic that Tim addressed was what *you* sidetracked it to when you
undertook the action of pointing to an Apple webpage that said widget
removal could *not* be done and exclaimed only the single word "Ouch!".
Unfortunately, for you, there is no google record proving the flat out
lie you told to Tim when he pointed out your apparent cluelessness.
As evidenced by the google record, Tim wrote:
"Again, I'm just addressing the line posted by snit. Not everybody is so
clueless as he is. If he know how to do it, he wouldn't have posted his
'Ouch!'"
And here's your reply regarding Tim's mention of your webpage reference
accompanied by the single word "Ouch!":
"Er? I was in reference to the fact that Apple *states* that... not
that it could not be done.
You were? Gee, Snit... how was anyone to know that was what you were in
reference to? What's wrong? No answer for this? Do you think that the
word "Ouch!" conveyed that much information? That's what you're trying
to sell here... but no one is buying. You continued with:
"Did you really miss that?"
Yes, he "really" did "miss that"...and so did anyone else reading
because you never said a single thing about it. That the other readers
in the thread dropped it altogether isn't relevant as they generally
don't bother with your crap once it starts up... but a few of us spotted
your bullshit and called you on it... the way we always will.
You then attempted to 'prove' your point with a bluff:
"Do you need me to point you to my earlier posts where I talk about
Widgets?"
This was a bluff you never could back up... as there are no such posts.
If they exist, why do you not point to them now? Wouldn't that be the
logical step to exonerate yourself from accusations that you are lying?
> > No one else "followed" you in that direction... nor did they fail to
> > provide
> > contextual clues as to what they were trying to say, you know, the way you
> > did with your "Ouch!". As far as reading comprehension goes, you presented
> > Macslut with a webpage whose content you agreed with (why else show the
> > page?), a page that stated the widgets could *not* be removed. Your
> > problem?
> > You cannot prove you didn't agree with the content of the page when you
> > pointed to it. We are left to take your word after the fact... your word
> > and
> > a lame excuse that Macslut thought it was "mere intelligence" that enabled
> > him to remove widgets. If Macslut could accomplish the feat (your claim)
> > then he was well aware of what it required. Your position here is absurd in
> > the extreme.
>
> What part of your babbling about what I said and did do you feel has not
> been fully explained to you?
The part where you claim to have referenced "that Apple *states*
that"... you know, where you are pretending that you referenced it prior
to the post in question as opposed to having done so after the fact (you
know, like what *really* happened here). Reality (google) shows your
timeline is outta whack. Also... the part about these "earlier posts"
you warned Tim you would show him. Where are these posts, Snit? Why are
you running away from this? You don''t need to answer because we both
know that NO such posts exists. You CAN'T answer this... and that's the
bottom line.
...pretty much proves that you are lying? Yes, I know. It's also stuff
you won't ever address. All we'll ever see is a glue bucket full of
lying spin coming from your direction.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-6ED16C.15...@news.west.earthlink.net on 10/4/06
> 12:58 PM:
>
> > ~babbling snipped
>
> And
Tim Adams proved snit an idiot again and snit ran away. So typical of the little
troll.
~babbling from the dung covered trolling circus clown michael glasser snipped
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
I see snit is still running from the question. so typical. Let me try again
michael - which version of OS X were you referring to when you claimed that "in
past versions of OS X there was a flaw with auto-installed widgets" when
previous version of OS X (remembering that OS X 10.4 WAS the current OS when
this discussion began) didn't support widgets at all?
> >>
> >> Do you now deny that in past versions of OS X, before the current one,
> >> that
> >> there was a malware risk associated with auto-installed widgets.
> >
> > Stupid question from a stupid person. So typical of you snit. The OS in
> > question when the discussion started was OS X 10.4. OS's, from Apple,
> > before
> > that time, didn't support Widgets.
>
> Do you deny, Tim, that in past versions of OS X, say 10.4.0,
Sorry michael, the 'past version of OS X' when the discussion was taking place
would have been 10.3.x, which didn't support widgets. Apparently you didn't know
that.
> that there was
> a flaw in OS X that lead to a malware risk from auto-installed widgets?
>
> Oh, you can only run from the question... it is all you can do. More proof
> of your ignorance.
You sure do show your ignorance when you state that in a "past versions of OS X
there was a flaw with auto-installed widgets", when everybody, except you
apparently knows that in the past versions (pre 10.4 when this discussion began)
of OS X, Widgets didn't exist.
>
> >> That was the topic of the thread in question, Tim, yet you show no
> >> understanding of it.
> >>
> >> Apple has since corrected that flaw, if you care.
> >
> > With OS X 10.4.1 IIRC, but then you still haven't answered my very simple
> > question. Why is that? I quess my first comment (is this yet another thing
> > you
> > didn't know?) was totally correct and once again your changing the topic
> > trying to run and hide.
>
> So you can point to the OS X update where the flaw was fixed, but you cannot
> figure out if the flaw existed in versions of the OS before that. OK, you
> are, again, being a moron. Got it.
Got it that your an idiot if you think version prior to OS X 10.4 had a flaw
with auto install widgets. And you continue to prove just what an idiot you are
by running away from reality.
~yet more babbling by the proven idiot michael galsser snipped
Wally
"Snit" <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> Note: no comment from Tim Adams about how Wally stuck his foot in his mouth
> and accidentally supported my view (which is reality).
This is the post of mine where Snit claims I supported his view if that is
the case then clearly he is agreeing with my comments contained in it.....
Wally wrote...
-----------------------------------------------
"I believe that anyone reading your post would conclude that you used "ouch"
as a exclamation of surprise, in that respect then yes it does indicate that
at that time you had no knowledge to counter that which was stated in the
link that you supplied! I am confident that you remedied that deficiency in
your knowledge soon after you made that post, probably because of Tim's post
that corrected you!
A few easily found examples are...
Ouch...
An expression of disappointment.
Used to express sudden pain or annoyance.
Used as an exclamation expressing sudden pain or dismay.
Used to express sudden pain or displeasure.
Now if you wish to claim that you were disappointed, annoyed, dismayed, or
displeased about something that you now say you knew to be false all the
time then go right ahead. LOL"-Wally
------------------------------------------------
Snit obviously agrees that at the time he posted the information contained
in the Apple article he was unaware that the information contained in it was
not entirely true....
"I believe that anyone reading your post would conclude that you used "ouch"
as a exclamation of surprise, in that respect then yes it does indicate that
at that time you had no knowledge to counter that which was stated in the
link that you supplied!"
Snit agrees that that is a correct assessment on my part and that it
supports his view! So finally the truth comes out just as some of us
expected it to....Snit agrees that he posted the information from Apple in
the belief that it was correct!
And that all of his later attempts to distance himself from that fact were
due in part to his humiliation of having his ignorance displayed for all to
see!
--
"I really is that simple"-Snit
Snit
>> Your ignorance on this is noted.
>
> My ignorance? LOL! Again... here is what you run from:
>
> If Macslut "already knew" how to remove the widgets (as you have
> continually claimed he did)
He almost certainly did. Yes.
> then he was obviously referring to intelligence with respect to what was
> required for removal (what you are labeling "technical competence")
Note how you clearly and unambiguously do not understand what you are
reading. Ok, I can accept that your reading comprehension sucks. Thanks
for sharing!
> and not "mere intelligence".
>
> How do you propose to combat the basic logic there, Snit? You don't
> propose to... that's why we find you trying to sidestep it altogether.
>
> (inability to address reality by Snit noted... crap snipped)
Please note your need to snip. You do not understand what you read, you
spew lies and BS based on your poor reading comprehension, and you then snip
and run from what you cannot deal with.
Intelligence and technical competence are not the same. Deal with it,
Steve, and grow up.
When you can understand that, Steve, you will understand how stupid your
above comments are. Good luck!
No matter how much you babble, Steve, the facts stay the same:
* Tim Adams got confused and started talking about Pre-installed widgets
when the topic was auto-installed widgets that lead to a malware risk.
* Tim Adams did not know what the tilde meant.
* Tim Adams trolled, flamed, and did lots of other trolling based on his
humiliation from the above points.
--
Snit
5:28 PM:
>>>> Ah, good! Now we can talk about OS X and pull this thread back on topic...
> I see snit is still running from the question. so typical. Let me try again
> michael - which version of OS X were you referring to when you claimed that
> "in past versions of OS X there was a flaw with auto-installed widgets" when
> previous version of OS X (remembering that OS X 10.4 WAS the current OS when
> this discussion began) didn't support widgets at all?
10.4.0: Dashboard w/ widgets introduced.
In this version of OS X their was a flaw that lead to a risk of
malware from auto-installed widgets. Donald started a thread
referencing these, MacSlut responded by asking how many brain
cells it would take to protect oneself, and I responded to
Macslut by pointing out that it takes more than "brain cells",
it also takes technical competence... as even the Apple web
site indicates the auto-installed widgets could not be
removed (nor other non-relevant widgets, if you care).
Tim Adams responded to me by commenting about the off-topic
Apple installed widgets. He was corrected by no less than
two people, and in the conversation it became very clear
he believed the tilde meant "the hard drive only", to the
point where he even incorrectly insisted articles presented to
him used the notation that way.
10.4.1: Dashboard updated... the flaw that lead to the risk of malware
was corrected.
The conversation in question was OS X 10.4.0, which was, at the time, the
current version of OS X but is now, clearly, a past version.
>>>> Do you now deny that in past versions of OS X, before the current one, that
>>>> there was a malware risk associated with auto-installed widgets.
Note: Tim Adams does not answer the question.
>> Do you deny, Tim, that in past versions of OS X, say 10.4.0, that there was a
>> flaw in OS X that lead to a malware risk from auto-installed widgets?
Note: Tim Adams does not answer the question.
>
> Sorry michael, the 'past version of OS X' when the discussion was taking place
> would have been 10.3.x, which didn't support widgets. Apparently you didn't
> know that.
I cannot stop you from lying about my views. OK. I can accept that...
though I will state I do not like it when you lie about me. Oh well, I also
will not lose sleep over your dishonesty.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-3A23CD....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/4/06 4:38 PM:
>
> >> Your ignorance on this is noted.
> >
> > My ignorance? LOL! Again... here is what you run from:
> >
> > If Macslut "already knew" how to remove the widgets (as you have
> > continually claimed he did)
>
> He almost certainly did. Yes.
Previously you said that he did. Are you changing your story now or not?
> > then he was obviously referring to intelligence with respect to what was
> > required for removal (what you are labeling "technical competence")
>
> Note how you clearly and unambiguously do not understand what you are
> reading.
Really? So when Macslut said "brain cells" he meant "intelligence"
devoid of "technical competence", right? That IS your argument for him,
Snit... and apparently, you *still* don't see how ridiculous it sounds.
> Ok, I can accept that your reading comprehension sucks. Thanks
> for sharing!
All that has happened it that *your* poor reading comprehension lead you
to believe a situation that didn't exist. I'm positive that Macslut was
fully aware of the "technical competence" involved in finding a couple
of folders under the name of" Widgets", in fact, I can even offer
"strong support" that Macslut was aware there is more than one place
such files are stored. Your bogus assertion that he felt it was only his
"mere intelligence" that enabled him to remove widgets is just that.
When Macslut used the term "brain cells" it was obviously in regard to
what was required (in the way of knowledge) to remove widgets. Only an
anal dimwit like yourself would take what he said literally and
interpret the term to be "synonymous" with "mere intelligence"... which
is why we find YOU (and *only* YOU) doing it;) Contrary to your new lie
that others "followed" you in your path of lies and bullshit, you will
be unable to show anyone doing so.
You're really making this too easy, ya know;)
>
> > and not "mere intelligence".
> >
> > How do you propose to combat the basic logic there, Snit? You don't
> > propose to... that's why we find you trying to sidestep it altogether.
> >
> > (inability to address reality by Snit noted... crap snipped)
>
> Please note your need to snip.
Please note you have *still* failed to address the logic I put forth
with anything a sane person would consider reasonable.
> You do not understand what you read, you
> spew lies and BS based on your poor reading comprehension, and you then snip
> and run from what you cannot deal with.
Sorry, Snit... your irrelevant bullshit doesn't interest me in the
least... nor will it deter me from continuing to post the reality you
are running away from. I'm having a LOT of fun watching you try to spin
this stuff into a glue fume you're hoping I'll sniff;)
>
> Intelligence and technical competence are not the same. Deal with it,
> Steve, and grow up.
Tell it to Macslut, the guy whom you allude thought the two were the
same thing, despite acknowledging his ability to accomplish the task of
removing widgets. OOPS! ;) Of course, you're going to prove all this is
the case any minute now, aren't you? ROFL!
Note: No comment by Snit of my contention that his use of the term
"Ouch!" didn't convey what he is trying to pretend it conveyed.
> You continued with:
> >
> > "Did you really miss that?"
> >
> > Yes, he "really" did "miss that"...and so did anyone else reading
> > because you never said a single thing about it.
Note: Still no comment by Snit regarding the context he *failed* to
convey and is now trying to pretend otherwise.
> That the other readers
> > in the thread dropped it altogether isn't relevant as they generally
> > don't bother with your crap once it starts up... but a few of us spotted
> > your bullshit and called you on it... the way we always will.
> >
> > You then attempted to 'prove' your point with a bluff:
> >
> > "Do you need me to point you to my earlier posts where I talk about
> > Widgets?"
> >
> > This was a bluff you never could back up... as there are no such posts.
> > If they exist, why do you not point to them now? Wouldn't that be the
> > logical step to exonerate yourself from accusations that you are lying?
Note: No comment by Snit regarding the "earlier posts" he threatened to
show Tim Adams to prove it was Tim who was in error and not Snit... a
thing Snit cannot do without these "earlier posts".
(sorry, your off topic babbling doesn't count)
Snit
>> He almost certainly did. Yes.
>
> Previously you said that he did. Are you changing your story now or not?
Your games are pathetic, Steve.
>> Note how you clearly and unambiguously do not understand what you are
>> reading.
>
> Really?
Yes, Steve, really. It is very clear you do not understand what you read.
Look at your next couple sentences to see how twisted up you get yourself
over simple concepts:
> So when Macslut said "brain cells" he meant "intelligence"
> devoid of "technical competence", right? That IS your argument for him,
> Snit... and apparently, you *still* don't see how ridiculous it sounds.
See. The concepts are simple, yet you get them so twisted in your wee
little brain that your head is ready to explode. You clearly do not
comprehend what you read.
>> Ok, I can accept that your reading comprehension sucks. Thanks
>> for sharing!
Look for a clear example of how you get simple concepts all twisted up:
>
> All that has happened it that *your* poor reading comprehension lead you
> to believe a situation that didn't exist. I'm positive that Macslut was
> fully aware of the "technical competence" involved in finding a couple
> of folders under the name of" Widgets", in fact, I can even offer
> "strong support" that Macslut was aware there is more than one place
> such files are stored. Your bogus assertion that he felt it was only his
> "mere intelligence" that enabled him to remove widgets is just that.
> When Macslut used the term "brain cells" it was obviously in regard to
> what was required (in the way of knowledge) to remove widgets. Only an
> anal dimwit like yourself would take what he said literally and
> interpret the term to be "synonymous" with "mere intelligence"... which
> is why we find YOU (and *only* YOU) doing it;) Contrary to your new lie
> that others "followed" you in your path of lies and bullshit, you will
> be unable to show anyone doing so.
>
> You're really making this too easy, ya know;)
See, Steve, how much you twist things. Amazing.
>
>>
>>> and not "mere intelligence".
>>>
>>> How do you propose to combat the basic logic there, Snit? You don't
>>> propose to... that's why we find you trying to sidestep it altogether.
>>>
>>> (inability to address reality by Snit noted... crap snipped)
>>
>> Please note your need to snip.
>
> Please note you have *still* failed to address the logic I put forth
> with anything a sane person would consider reasonable.
I have addressed your comments: you cannot understand what you read, even
when the concepts are simple:
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
These are simple concepts, Steve, and yet look at how twisted they get in
your wee little brain. You cannot comprehend what you read, you cannot be
honest, and you cannot stand up and be honest and honorable and admit your
co-trolls are trolling. It is amazing to watch.
<snip />
>>>>> Reality shows that no one but you pointed to a web page totally out of
>>>>> context of the position you subsequently *claimed* you were taking.
>>>>
>>>> The topic was A.
>>>> I referenced an article that talked about A. It also talked
>>>> about B, but that was not relevant to the conversation.
>>>> Tim Adams talked about B.
Note: Steve Carroll has not shown he has the ability to understand this.
--
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
Snit
>> He almost certainly did. Yes.
>
> Previously you said that he did. Are you changing your story now or not?
Your games are pathetic, Steve.
>> Note how you clearly and unambiguously do not understand what you are
>> reading.
>
> Really?
Yes, Steve, really. It is very clear you do not understand what you read.
Look at your next couple sentences to see how twisted up you get yourself
over simple concepts:
> So when Macslut said "brain cells" he meant "intelligence"
> devoid of "technical competence", right? That IS your argument for him,
> Snit... and apparently, you *still* don't see how ridiculous it sounds.
See. The concepts are simple, yet you get them so twisted in your wee
little brain that your head is ready to explode. You clearly do not
comprehend what you read.
>> Ok, I can accept that your reading comprehension sucks. Thanks
>> for sharing!
Look for a clear example of how you get simple concepts all twisted up:
>
> All that has happened it that *your* poor reading comprehension lead you
> to believe a situation that didn't exist. I'm positive that Macslut was
> fully aware of the "technical competence" involved in finding a couple
> of folders under the name of" Widgets", in fact, I can even offer
> "strong support" that Macslut was aware there is more than one place
> such files are stored. Your bogus assertion that he felt it was only his
> "mere intelligence" that enabled him to remove widgets is just that.
> When Macslut used the term "brain cells" it was obviously in regard to
> what was required (in the way of knowledge) to remove widgets. Only an
> anal dimwit like yourself would take what he said literally and
> interpret the term to be "synonymous" with "mere intelligence"... which
> is why we find YOU (and *only* YOU) doing it;) Contrary to your new lie
> that others "followed" you in your path of lies and bullshit, you will
> be unable to show anyone doing so.
>
> You're really making this too easy, ya know;)
See, Steve, how much you twist things. Amazing.
>
>>
>>> and not "mere intelligence".
>>>
>>> How do you propose to combat the basic logic there, Snit? You don't
>>> propose to... that's why we find you trying to sidestep it altogether.
>>>
>>> (inability to address reality by Snit noted... crap snipped)
>>
>> Please note your need to snip.
>
> Please note you have *still* failed to address the logic I put forth
> with anything a sane person would consider reasonable.
I have addressed your comments: you cannot understand what you read, even
when the concepts are simple:
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
These are simple concepts, Steve, and yet look at how twisted they get in
your wee little brain. You cannot comprehend what you read, you cannot be
honest, and you cannot stand up and be honest and honorable and admit your
co-trolls are trolling. It is amazing to watch.
<snip />
>>>>> Reality shows that no one but you pointed to a web page totally out of
>>>>> context of the position you subsequently *claimed* you were taking.
>>>>
>>>> The topic was A.
>>>> I referenced an article that talked about A. It also talked
>>>> about B, but that was not relevant to the conversation.
>>>> Tim Adams talked about B.
Note: Steve Carroll has not shown he has the ability to understand this.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
~snip
>
> The topic was A.
> I referenced an article that talked about A. It also talked
> about B, but that was not relevant to the conversation.
> Tim Adams talked about B.
>
Yet when confronted with reality, like the FACT that Apple doesn't support third
party software, and the FACT that the web site you linked to was on Apple's web
site and didn't mention, or reference in any way, shape or form Auto-install
widgets, you run away as fast as you can.
So when are you going to offer any support that the Apple web page did support
third party (ie: auto-installed widgets) software?
~snip
Dan Johnson
[snip]
> 10.4.0: Dashboard w/ widgets introduced.
> 10.4.1: Dashboard updated... the flaw that lead to the risk of malware
> was corrected.
Ah, how soon we forget.
10.4.1 did *not* fix the security bug. It added an additional
warning dialog (the one that warns that you are
downloading an application), but this was misleading:
it did not say it was a widget, and it did not say it would
install it.
The broken security prompt in Dashboard was still
broken in this release, amazingly.
10.4.2 fixed the prompt and (if I recall correctly) added
a supported way to remove an installed widget. Dashboard
worked as advertised at this point.
And that's the state of play today: you still have Safari
auto-installing widgets without telling you, and these
widgets can still impersonate Apple widgets. When
run, these widgets can still run arbitrary code and
own your butt.
However, you *are* warned you are downloading an
"application", if not that you are installing it, and
the "running new widget" warning cannot, as far as
is known, by bypassed anymore. And you can
now safely remove a malicious widget if you notice
it before running it.
Still, even now the security provided is inferior to
Active-X (which at least has digital signatures), and
we all know how secure Active-X turned out to be.
All in all, Dashboard *remains* an open invitation
to malware, and a shocking example of ongoing bad
security in OS X.
In my original post, long ago, I predicted that
*in spite of this gaping hole*, there would be little
OS X malware, because nobody cared to target the
platform. I think this prediction has been vindicated.
Certainly no-one can claim that Apple is even seriously
*trying* to build secure technology. Not with Dashboard
*still* in the scandalous state it is in.
[snip]
Snit
1:56 AM:
> In article <C149D354.61642%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
> ~snip
>
>
>>
>> The topic was A.
>> I referenced an article that talked about A. It also talked
>> about B, but that was not relevant to the conversation.
>> Tim Adams talked about B.
>>
>
> Yet when confronted with reality, like the FACT that Apple doesn't support
> third party software, and the FACT that the web site you linked to was on
> Apple's web site and didn't mention, or reference in any way, shape or form
> Auto-install widgets, you run away as fast as you can.
>
> So when are you going to offer any support that the Apple web page did support
> third party (ie: auto-installed widgets) software?
Who said anything about the page supporting third party software, Tim? Oh,
that's right... *nobody*! From the debate summary:
---------
2 Tim insists that the link I responded to MacSlut with (Part I:3) was in
reference to Apple-installed widgets only. His "evidence" is that on
other pages where Apple mentions third party software by name they also
have a standard disclaimer.
Tim's "evidence" did not hold up to scrutiny at all - the page in
question did not talk about any given third party product, just how
OS X handles third party products in general. I was able to link to
several other similar pages on Apple's site that also did not have
the disclaimer. I purposely found and pointed to ones that made
references to third party software.
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301572>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302061>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301629>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302240>
---------
It is not as if this is the first time you have tried that desperate plea to
be seen as reasonable... LOL!
And Tim's trolling comes back to smack him on the ass *again*!
--
€ Different viruses are still different even if in the same "family"
€ Dreamweaver and GoLive are professional web development applications
€ Dreamweaver, being the #1 pro web design tool, is used by many pros
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-AD78D9....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/4/06 9:54 PM:
>
> >> He almost certainly did. Yes.
> >
> > Previously you said that he did. Are you changing your story now or not?
>
> Your games are pathetic, Steve.
>
> >> Note how you clearly and unambiguously do not understand what you are
> >> reading.
> >
> > Really?
>
> Yes, Steve, really. It is very clear you do not understand what you read.
> Look at your next couple sentences to see how twisted up you get yourself
> over simple concepts:
>
> > So when Macslut said "brain cells" he meant "intelligence"
> > devoid of "technical competence", right? That IS your argument for him,
> > Snit... and apparently, you *still* don't see how ridiculous it sounds.
>
> See. The concepts are simple, yet you get them so twisted in your wee
> little brain that your head is ready to explode. You clearly do not
> comprehend what you read.
>
So, your argument is... when Macslut used the term "brain cells" he
*was* referring to "technical competence?
Hint: It's one or the other, Snit.
Go ahead... explain how simple the concepts are;)
> >> Ok, I can accept that your reading comprehension sucks. Thanks
> >> for sharing!
>
> Look for a clear example of how you get simple concepts all twisted up:
> >
> > All that has happened it that *your* poor reading comprehension lead you
> > to believe a situation that didn't exist. I'm positive that Macslut was
> > fully aware of the "technical competence" involved in finding a couple
> > of folders under the name of" Widgets", in fact, I can even offer
> > "strong support" that Macslut was aware there is more than one place
> > such files are stored. Your bogus assertion that he felt it was only his
> > "mere intelligence" that enabled him to remove widgets is just that.
> > When Macslut used the term "brain cells" it was obviously in regard to
> > what was required (in the way of knowledge) to remove widgets. Only an
> > anal dimwit like yourself would take what he said literally and
> > interpret the term to be "synonymous" with "mere intelligence"... which
> > is why we find YOU (and *only* YOU) doing it;) Contrary to your new lie
> > that others "followed" you in your path of lies and bullshit, you will
> > be unable to show anyone doing so.
> >
> > You're really making this too easy, ya know;)
>
> See, Steve, how much you twist things. Amazing.
What's not amazing is your unwillingness to answer a simple question:
When Macslut used the term "brain cells" was he referring to what you
are calling "technical competence" (a thing he must have possessed to
hear you tell it... because, as you say, he "already knew" how to remove
the widgets)?
If we look at what you wrote to him and all you've written since then,
we see you answering with an unequivocal NO, Macslut was not referring
to "technical competence", hence your reason for initially informing him.
So what's left? This:
Do you now wish to suggest that he was able to remove widgets without
possessing or utilizing any "technical competence"?
This necessarily must be the case because you clearly told him that it
was "a matter of" "technical competence", something you must have felt
he did *not* know because, as you have made clear, you did not, in your
opinion, tell he something "he already knew":
"Why the hell would I tell MacSlut something he already knew? Are you
so dense you *really* cannot understand the stupidity of your
suggestion?"
Strong language... from which I'll believe that you believed he "already
knew" about how to remove widgets (also, due to the fact that you keep
asserting it). But, more importantly, this quote indicates that you
believed that "he already knew" how to remove widgets and was able to do
so devoid of any "technical competence"... hence your jumping in to tell
him about that, which you seem to still be asserting he was unaware of.
This position makes NO sense given what you have stated up until now:
"In the end, Steve, it is easy to remove third party widgets, and even
was at the time the conversation in question took place - assuming a
user had a pretty good level of technical knowledge."
My reply:
"Enough to remove a widget from a folder and relaunch or restart."
You then clarified what you meant by the term "technical knowledge":
"Mostly correct - the bigger challenge would be knowing that it was even
possible and then knowing - or finding - the correct folder."
From the same post:
"There was no reason to assume MacSlut did not already know what folder
to go to."
So what does that leave (if he knows what folder to go to)? To stay
consistent with your clarified definition of the term "technical
knowledge" you must be claiming that he didn't know it was possible to
remove widgets, yet... you have stated "he already knew" how to do that.
Cue up Snit's lacing of his track shoes;)
Steve Carroll
<teadams$2$0$0$3-F5AABE.04...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <C149D354.61642%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
> ~snip
>
>
> >
> > The topic was A.
> > I referenced an article that talked about A. It also talked
> > about B, but that was not relevant to the conversation.
> > Tim Adams talked about B.
> >
>
> Yet when confronted with reality, like the FACT that Apple doesn't support
> third
> party software, and the FACT that the web site you linked to was on Apple's
> web
> site and didn't mention, or reference in any way, shape or form Auto-install
> widgets, you run away as fast as you can.
>
> So when are you going to offer any support that the Apple web page did
> support
> third party (ie: auto-installed widgets) software?
>
> ~snip
Here are some other facts Snit is running from:
1 -Snit tells Macslut something that Snit subsequently insists Macslut
did *not* know, that being, widget removal is a matter of "technical
competence", not "intelligence".
2 - Snit claims that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets.
This would indicate that Snit believes Macslut was able to remove
widgets devoid of any "technical competence" :)
Below is where it gets really fun...
So...what is "technical competence"? I will assume it is the same thing
as what Snit is referring to here as "technical knowledge". Snit wrote:
"In the end, Steve, it is easy to remove third party widgets, and even
was at the time the conversation in question took place - assuming a
user had a pretty good level of technical knowledge."
My reply:
"Enough to remove a widget from a folder and relaunch or restart."
Snit's clarifying definition:
"Mostly correct - the bigger challenge would be knowing that it was even
possible and then knowing - or finding - the correct folder."
Snit has indicated that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets...
is he saying that Macslut was able to do so without knowing it was
possible? No, this doesn't make any sense. OK... so is Snit saying
Macslut was able to remove the widgets without knowing what folder to go
to? This makes no sense, either... but Snit provides the comedy in the
very same post with:
"There was no reason to assume MacSlut did not already know what folder
to go to."
So, Snit is saying that Macslut was unaware that it was "technical
competence" that enabled Macslut to remove widgets (hence Snit's reason
for initially informing him of the fact), yet, Snit clearly indicates
his belief, via his clarified definition of "technical knowledge", that
Macslut, at the least, knew what folder to go to. I wonder if, in Snit's
mind, Macslut met Snit's other criteria - "knowing that it was even
possible" to remove widgets? You'd think so because, according to Snit,
this was something Macslut "already knew"... but with Snit... one never
knows;)
Snit
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
> So, your argument is... when Macslut used the term "brain cells" he
> *was* referring to "technical competence?
Incorrect. See, Steve, as noted even in the subject line, you cannot
understand simple concepts.
And, no, Steve, I am not interested in your volumes of babbling, though I
left it in, below, so you can see how stupid you are and how little you
understand:
> Hint: It's one or the other, Snit.
>
> Go ahead... explain how simple the concepts are;)
>
>>>> Ok, I can accept that your reading comprehension sucks. Thanks
>>>> for sharing!
>>
>> Look for a clear example of how you get simple concepts all twisted up:
>>>
>>> All that has happened it that *your* poor reading comprehension lead you
>>> to believe a situation that didn't exist. I'm positive that Macslut was
>>> fully aware of the "technical competence" involved in finding a couple
>>> of folders under the name of" Widgets", in fact, I can even offer
>>> "strong support" that Macslut was aware there is more than one place
>>> such files are stored. Your bogus assertion that he felt it was only his
>>> "mere intelligence" that enabled him to remove widgets is just that.
>>> When Macslut used the term "brain cells" it was obviously in regard to
>>> what was required (in the way of knowledge) to remove widgets. Only an
>>> anal dimwit like yourself would take what he said literally and
>>> interpret the term to be "synonymous" with "mere intelligence"... which
>>> is why we find YOU (and *only* YOU) doing it;) Contrary to your new lie
>>> that others "followed" you in your path of lies and bullshit, you will
>>> be unable to show anyone doing so.
>>>
>>> You're really making this too easy, ya know;)
>>
>> See, Steve, how much you twist things. Amazing.
And again, look at all the babbling and twisting you do in your head... you
cannot understand simple concepts:
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
> What's not amazing is your unwillingness to answer a simple question:
Amazing how twisted simple thoughts get when they enter your head... you
simple do not get even simple things:
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
LOL! Amazing how stupid you are, Steve!
Snit
Again, Steve, the facts:
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
Look above for how twisted your thinking process (I am being kind to call it
thinking!) is...
LOL!
The facts are simple. Steve cannot understand what he reads. Precious!
--
€ Pros aren't beginners in their field (though there are new pros)
€ Similarly configured Macs and Win machines tend to cost roughly the same
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-0E0D5C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 8:52 AM:
>
> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
> the problem
> * I pointed out how it took and how an intelligent
> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
1. How was a person supposed to deduce all of that from what you
initially wrote?
2. How do you claim that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets
while asserting that he was unaware it was "technical competence" that
enabled him to do so?
You're obviously lying on number 1 and making no sense at all on 2.
(snip stuff irrelevant to my issue with you)
> > So, your argument is... when Macslut used the term "brain cells" he
> > *was* referring to "technical competence?
>
> Incorrect.
OK... now we're getting somewhere.
So when Macslut said "brain cells" you are now asserting that he meant
"intelligence" devoid of "technical competence". This position makes no
sense at all. Thanks for clearing up in which direction you chose to
make no sense this time.
> > Hint: It's one or the other, Snit.
> >
> > Go ahead... explain how simple the concepts are;)
> >
> >>>> Ok, I can accept that your reading comprehension sucks. Thanks
> >>>> for sharing!
> >>
> >> Look for a clear example of how you get simple concepts all twisted up:
> >>>
> >>> All that has happened it that *your* poor reading comprehension lead you
> >>> to believe a situation that didn't exist. I'm positive that Macslut was
> >>> fully aware of the "technical competence" involved in finding a couple
> >>> of folders under the name of" Widgets", in fact, I can even offer
> >>> "strong support" that Macslut was aware there is more than one place
> >>> such files are stored. Your bogus assertion that he felt it was only his
> >>> "mere intelligence" that enabled him to remove widgets is just that.
> >>> When Macslut used the term "brain cells" it was obviously in regard to
> >>> what was required (in the way of knowledge) to remove widgets. Only an
> >>> anal dimwit like yourself would take what he said literally and
> >>> interpret the term to be "synonymous" with "mere intelligence"... which
> >>> is why we find YOU (and *only* YOU) doing it;) Contrary to your new lie
> >>> that others "followed" you in your path of lies and bullshit, you will
> >>> be unable to show anyone doing so.
> >>>
> >>> You're really making this too easy, ya know;)
> >>
> >> See, Steve, how much you twist things. Amazing.
>
> And again,
You failed to respond? Yes, I know.
... you will pretend that I haven't cornered your erroneous position?
Not really... you do this kind of stuff almost every day.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-078D01....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 9:16 AM:
(snip)
... are exactly as I posted them above? Yes, I know
Snit
>> Again, Steve, the facts
>
>
> ... are exactly as I posted them above? Yes, I know
>
Funny how you feel the need to snip and run, Steve.
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
So far you have shown no understanding of the above. Can you show you
understand it now?
PS: that was a rhetorical question... you cannot. It is clear you simply
are not able to comprehend what you read, no matter how simple it is to
understand.
--
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ One can be actually guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
> In article <C14A815A.6171D%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-0E0D5C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 8:52 AM:
>>
>> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
>> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
>> the problem
>> * I pointed out how it took and how an intelligent
>> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
>> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
>
> 1. How was a person supposed to deduce all of that from what you
> initially wrote?
Using reading comprehension... something you do not have. Of course, if
someone was not sure, they could ask... which you did. I clarified, and you
*still* do not get it. OK, so you cannot understand what you read. I will
not argue with you about that - you have shown it as a fact.
>
> 2. How do you claim that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets
Using reading comprehension... something you do not have. Again, reading
MacSluts comments it was quite unlikely he did not know how to remove the
widgets in question. The fact you need to read *and* understand in order to
figure that out is something you do not have the ability to do. I get
that... this is another example of your poor reading comprehension.
> while asserting that he was unaware it was "technical competence" that
> enabled him to do so?
>
> You're obviously lying on number 1 and making no sense at all on 2.
And you are clearly not understanding the facts. They are listed above. Oh
well. You can twist words all you like, Steve, but you cannot change the
facts. Sad for you, eh?
>
> (snip stuff irrelevant to my issue with you)
Your "issue" with me, Steve, is your desperate need to try to get revenge
because I posted info about Bush you did not like:
<http://csma.gallopinginsanity.com/bush/>. Ever since then you have been
following me around trolling, flaming, and lying. That *is* the issue...
the rest is your circus.
>
>>> So, your argument is... when Macslut used the term "brain cells" he
>>> *was* referring to "technical competence?
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
> OK... now we're getting somewhere.
>
> So when Macslut said "brain cells" you are now asserting that he meant
> "intelligence" devoid of "technical competence". This position makes no
> sense at all. Thanks for clearing up in which direction you chose to
> make no sense this time.
Again, Steve, the facts are clear:
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
I know... you have made it clear you cannot understand those simple facts.
OK. So you have poor reading comprehension skills. No argument about that
from me!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-F43D8B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 9:58 AM:
>
> >> Again, Steve, the facts
> >
> >
> > ... are exactly as I posted them above? Yes, I know
> >
> Funny how you feel the need to snip and run, Steve.
>
> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
>
> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
> the problem
>
> * I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
>
I got it, Snit, you think you pointed all this stuff out to Maclsut.
What I'm asking you is:
1. How do you figure you did all that with what you initially wrote to
him?
2. Why did you assume that, when Macslut used the term "brain cells", he
wasn't referring to those cells that contained the "technical knowledge"
required to remove widgets?
3. Why did you assume that he was unaware that a person with just "mere
intelligence" alone (and no computer knowledge) wouldn't be able to
accomplish the task?
(snip stuff that is irrelevant to what I am taking issue with)
> So far you have shown no understanding of the above.
Incorrect, I understand the position you took... I'm just waiting for
your explanation of *why* you took it. So far, all I've gotten is a
bunch of juvenile game playing from you... no "actual" answers.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-D52F28....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 9:57 AM:
>
> > In article <C14A815A.6171D%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-0E0D5C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 8:52 AM:
> >>
> >> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
> >> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
> >> the problem
> >> * I pointed out how it took and how an intelligent
> >> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
> >> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
> >
> > 1. How was a person supposed to deduce all of that from what you
> > initially wrote?
>
> Using reading comprehension...
Uh hunh... so point to the part where you specifically told Macslut in
that 'initial' (see the words "initially wrote" up above) post that
referenced the Apple webpage that Apple had bad info on their site. Oh,
that's right... you can't point to that because it's as non existent as
the "earlier posts" you warned Tim you would show him.
> something you do not have. Of course, if
> someone was not sure, they could ask... which you did.
I clearly stated "initially wrote" up above, Snit... it's obvious who
has the reading comprehension problem here. Whether I, or anyone else
asked later, *after* Tim's reply, is totally irrelevant to my point.
> I clarified, and you *still* do not get it.
My point is that events didn't occur on the timeline you keep trying to
pretend that they did. When Tim first addressed your Apple webpage
reference you hadn't yet clarified any of the stuff you subsequently
clarified. But hey, thanks for pointing out that you didn't initially
make things as clear as you are trying to pretend you did... (not that
it was "actually" necessary). This underscores your newest lie that
people "followed" you... events show this happened the other way around.
> OK, so you cannot understand what you read. I will
> not argue with you about that - you have shown it as a fact.
What I have shown is an unwillingness to agree to your bogus timeline
and the things you are labeling as "fact".
> > 2. How do you claim that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets
>
> Using reading comprehension... something you do not have. Again, reading
> MacSluts comments it was quite unlikely he did not know how to remove the
> widgets in question.
Which, as you said, required "technical competence". The question
remains: How was Macslut able to remove widgets if he didn't possess the
requisite "technical competence" and be cognizant of that same fact?
It's a rather mysterious position you have managed to thrust Macslut
into... how do you explain it?
See? Even when you hack the question in half before you reply to it, the
essence of it lives on. Sorry, you're not escaping this reality.
> The fact you need to read *and* understand in order to
> figure that out is something you do not have the ability to do. I get
> that... this is another example of your poor reading comprehension.
>
> > while asserting that he was unaware it was "technical competence" that
> > enabled him to do so?
Note: No comment on the latter half of this question from you. Gee, I
wonder why;)
> > You're obviously lying on number 1 and making no sense at all on 2.
>
> And you are clearly not understanding the facts.
I understand what *you* are calling "facts" and I also understand the
bogus timeline you tried to sell and no one bought because google proved
otherwise.
> They are listed above. Oh
> well. You can twist words all you like, Steve, but you cannot change the
> facts. Sad for you, eh?
> >
> > (snip stuff irrelevant to my issue with you)
>
> Your "issue" with me, Steve, is
...to get you to answer a couple of simple questions that will show you
are lying here. You've done that... thanks.
Snit
> In article <C14A8904.61732%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-F43D8B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 9:58 AM:
>>
>>>> Again, Steve, the facts
>>>
>>>
>>> ... are exactly as I posted them above? Yes, I know
>>>
>> Funny how you feel the need to snip and run, Steve.
>>
>> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
>>
>> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
>> the problem
>>
>> * I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
>> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
>> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
>>
>> * Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
>>
>> * No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
>>
>> * In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
>> tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
>> error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly>
> (snip stuff that is irrelevant to what I am taking issue with)
>
>> So far you have shown no understanding of the above.
And you still do not understand the above. Oh well. As I have noted, your
reading comprehension skills are very, very poor. Thanks for proving it
*again*!
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Snit
> In article <C14A8AB5.61734%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-D52F28....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 9:57 AM:
>>
>>> In article <C14A815A.6171D%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
>>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>>>> noone-0E0D5C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 8:52 AM:
>>>>
>>>> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
>>>> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
>>>> the problem
>>>> * I pointed out how it took and how an intelligent
>>>> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
>>>> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
>>>
>>> 1. How was a person supposed to deduce all of that from what you
>>> initially wrote?
>>
>> Using reading comprehension...
>
> Uh hunh...
Yes, Steve. If you could learn to read you could understand the simple
facts:
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
You have yet to show any understanding of that at all.. but you sure do spew
tons of BS. Look below for how twisted and confused you get yourself:
See how confused and twisted simple facts get when you spew off about them!
LOL! You really cannot understand even simple things...
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
All simple facts. Someone with third grade reading could likely understand
that... but you cannot Steve. LOL! And you keep proving it!
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
What's really funny is that snit didn't have a clue as to how to remove _ANY_
widgets, until it was pointed out to him in that thread. Goes top show you just
how 'intelligent' and 'technically competent' snit really is. Like his 'ouch'
said it all.
>
> Snit's clarifying definition:
> "Mostly correct - the bigger challenge would be knowing that it was even
> possible and then knowing - or finding - the correct folder."
>
> Snit has indicated that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets...
> is he saying that Macslut was able to do so without knowing it was
> possible? No, this doesn't make any sense. OK... so is Snit saying
> Macslut was able to remove the widgets without knowing what folder to go
> to? This makes no sense, either... but Snit provides the comedy in the
> very same post with:
>
> "There was no reason to assume MacSlut did not already know what folder
> to go to."
>
> So, Snit is saying that Macslut was unaware that it was "technical
> competence" that enabled Macslut to remove widgets (hence Snit's reason
> for initially informing him of the fact), yet, Snit clearly indicates
> his belief, via his clarified definition of "technical knowledge", that
> Macslut, at the least, knew what folder to go to. I wonder if, in Snit's
> mind, Macslut met Snit's other criteria - "knowing that it was even
> possible" to remove widgets? You'd think so because, according to Snit,
> this was something Macslut "already knew"... but with Snit... one never
> knows;)
--
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-0E0D5C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 8:52 AM:
>
> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
> the problem
> * I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
> on their site
So now it's 'bad info on their site'? Too bad your 'ouch' proved you agreed with
it, making you totally technically incompetence and unintelligent.
~snipped more babbling as snit tries to run and hide
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-F43D8B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 9:58 AM:
>
> >> Again, Steve, the facts
> >
> >
> > ... are exactly as I posted them above? Yes, I know
> >
> Funny how you feel the need to snip and run, Steve.
>
> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
>
> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
> the problem
>
> * I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
>
> * Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
A lie that you continue to make but cannot back up in any way.
More babbling by the liar snit snipped
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-F5AABE.04...@news.west.earthlink.net on 10/5/06
> 1:56 AM:
>
> > In article <C149D354.61642%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> > ~snip
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The topic was A.
> >> I referenced an article that talked about A. It also talked
> >> about B, but that was not relevant to the conversation.
> >> Tim Adams talked about B.
> >>
> >
> > Yet when confronted with reality, like the FACT that Apple doesn't support
> > third party software, and the FACT that the web site you linked to was on
> > Apple's web site and didn't mention, or reference in any way, shape or form
> > Auto-install widgets, you run away as fast as you can.
> >
> > So when are you going to offer any support that the Apple web page did
> > support
> > third party (ie: auto-installed widgets) software?
>
> Who said anything about the page supporting third party software, Tim?
YOU did by claiming that their web site dealt with Auto Install widgets -
something that didn't come from Apple but third party developers.
So now where is your proof that the Apple web page deals with Auto install
widgets? It didn't! Live with it. Your a liar and a troll as proved by this YET
ANOTHER new thread as you continue to be proved a liar in the half dozen other
threads dealing with the same topic. Too bad you never learned to READ.
~babbling from the trolling idiot michael glasser snipped
Snit
2:21 PM:
The facts:
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
Any reasonable person with a third grade education could understand those
facts... yet see how much Tim Adams gets wrong:
>> 1 -Snit tells Macslut something that Snit subsequently insists Macslut
>> did *not* know, that being, widget removal is a matter of "technical
>> competence", not "intelligence".
>>
>> 2 - Snit claims that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets.
>>
>> This would indicate that Snit believes Macslut was able to remove
>> widgets devoid of any "technical competence" :)
See where you get your facts all twisted up, Tim! Wow... where the hell did
you get the idea that *anyone* thought MacSlut did not have the technical
competence to remove widgets? You get that from your inability to
understand what you read... and *nowhere* else.
>> Below is where it gets really fun...
I am sure! Your lack of ability to understand what you read can be quite
amusing!
>>
>> So...what is "technical competence"? I will assume it is the same thing
>> as what Snit is referring to here as "technical knowledge". Snit wrote:
>>
>> "In the end, Steve, it is easy to remove third party widgets, and even
>> was at the time the conversation in question took place - assuming a
>> user had a pretty good level of technical knowledge."
>>
>> My reply:
>> "Enough to remove a widget from a folder and relaunch or restart."
What is funny about that? Wait, read below:
> What's really funny is that snit didn't have a clue as to how to remove _ANY_
> widgets, until it was pointed out to him in that thread. Goes top show you
> just how 'intelligent' and 'technically competent' snit really is. Like his
> 'ouch' said it all.
Ah, Tim thinks his lie about me is *funny*. Keep in mind, until Tim Adams
showed he did not know how to remove widgets, there is no reason to think
anyone in the thread did not have that technical competence. I will grant
that your lie was slightly funny, Tim, but only on the first telling. You
have repeated it too many times for it to even lead to a snicker.
>> Snit's clarifying definition:
>> "Mostly correct - the bigger challenge would be knowing that it was even
>> possible and then knowing - or finding - the correct folder."
It is true one must know what folder to go to... and if one is reading about
it in an article, one must know the correct notation... Tim Adams did not.
Had Tim known where the auto-installed widgets were stored *or* if he had
known what the tilde meant, he would not have made claims such as these:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e4d70b3f9e925304>
"YOU were the person claiming that the ~ told people to go to
HardDrive/users/username/ while I stated the ~ indicated the
name of the hard drive only."
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/077366e28cacfd65>
"Gee, they all support me and the location. Hard drive (or in
their case ~) /library/widget. NOT the
~/users/username/library/widget as at least one other
person said, and you agreed with a day or so ago."
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8950b4ada0446ed>
"With ~ equal to the name of my hard drive, I locate ALL of the
widgets. With it equal to harddrive/user/username/library there IS
NO directory called widget UNLESS you've installed the malware
widget or another self installed widget.
As such, when the articles YOU directed me to indicated that widgets
were at ~/library/widgets THE ARTICLES WERE USING THE ~ AS THE NAME
OF THE HARD DRIVE AND NOT THE FULL PATH
harddrive/user/username/library"
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/17ffa5a5b8fd9796>
Until the widget folder is created at
users/username/library/widgets, why would O'Reilly and others direct
you to a non-existing location with their ~/library/widgets IF as
you claim, the ~ means user/username?
Proof: Tim Adams was ignorant of where the auto-installed widgets were
stored *and* he was ignorant of what the tilde meant. If he had known
*either* he would not have claimed the articles were using the tilde in the
same incorrect way he was.
But let's look at Tim Adams' ignorant spin:
>> Snit has indicated that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets...
Yes... he almost certainly did.
>> is he saying that Macslut was able to do so without knowing it was
>> possible? No, this doesn't make any sense. OK... so is Snit saying
>> Macslut was able to remove the widgets without knowing what folder to go
>> to? This makes no sense, either... but Snit provides the comedy in the
>> very same post with:
>>
>> "There was no reason to assume MacSlut did not already know what folder
>> to go to."
Of course there was not. MacSlut almost certainly had the technical
competence to remove auto-installed widgets.
>>
>> So, Snit is saying that Macslut was unaware that it was "technical
>> competence" that enabled Macslut to remove widgets (hence Snit's reason
>> for initially informing him of the fact), yet, Snit clearly indicates
>> his belief, via his clarified definition of "technical knowledge", that
>> Macslut, at the least, knew what folder to go to. I wonder if, in Snit's
>> mind, Macslut met Snit's other criteria - "knowing that it was even
>> possible" to remove widgets? You'd think so because, according to Snit,
>> this was something Macslut "already knew"... but with Snit... one never
>> knows;)
See how twisted you get yourself, Tim. Here are the facts again:
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
All very simple... yet you, Wally, and Carroll do not have the reading
comprehension to figure it out. Amazing... you all share the same
incompetence. Your co-trolling group-think is that amazingly strong. LOL!
Snit
teadams$2$0$0$3-B3C547.17...@news.west.earthlink.net on 10/5/06
2:21 PM:
The facts:
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
Any reasonable person with a third grade education could understand those
facts... yet see how much Tim Adams gets wrong:
>> 1 -Snit tells Macslut something that Snit subsequently insists Macslut
>> did *not* know, that being, widget removal is a matter of "technical
>> competence", not "intelligence".
>>
>> 2 - Snit claims that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets.
>>
>> This would indicate that Snit believes Macslut was able to remove
>> widgets devoid of any "technical competence" :)
See where you get your facts all twisted up, Tim! Wow... where the hell did
you get the idea that *anyone* thought MacSlut did not have the technical
competence to remove widgets? You get that from your inability to
understand what you read... and *nowhere* else.
>> Below is where it gets really fun...
I am sure! Your lack of ability to understand what you read can be quite
amusing!
>>
>> So...what is "technical competence"? I will assume it is the same thing
>> as what Snit is referring to here as "technical knowledge". Snit wrote:
>>
>> "In the end, Steve, it is easy to remove third party widgets, and even
>> was at the time the conversation in question took place - assuming a
>> user had a pretty good level of technical knowledge."
>>
>> My reply:
>> "Enough to remove a widget from a folder and relaunch or restart."
What is funny about that? Wait, read below:
> What's really funny is that snit didn't have a clue as to how to remove _ANY_
> widgets, until it was pointed out to him in that thread. Goes top show you
> just how 'intelligent' and 'technically competent' snit really is. Like his
> 'ouch' said it all.
Ah, Tim thinks his lie about me is *funny*. Keep in mind, until Tim Adams
showed he did not know how to remove widgets, there is no reason to think
anyone in the thread did not have that technical competence. I will grant
that your lie was slightly funny, Tim, but only on the first telling. You
have repeated it too many times for it to even lead to a snicker.
>> Snit's clarifying definition:
>> "Mostly correct - the bigger challenge would be knowing that it was even
>> possible and then knowing - or finding - the correct folder."
It is true one must know what folder to go to... and if one is reading about
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e4d70b3f9e925304>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/077366e28cacfd65>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/e8950b4ada0446ed>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/17ffa5a5b8fd9796>
>> Snit has indicated that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets...
Yes... he almost certainly did.
>> is he saying that Macslut was able to do so without knowing it was
>> possible? No, this doesn't make any sense. OK... so is Snit saying
>> Macslut was able to remove the widgets without knowing what folder to go
>> to? This makes no sense, either... but Snit provides the comedy in the
>> very same post with:
>>
>> "There was no reason to assume MacSlut did not already know what folder
>> to go to."
Of course there was not. MacSlut almost certainly had the technical
competence to remove auto-installed widgets.
>>
>> So, Snit is saying that Macslut was unaware that it was "technical
>> competence" that enabled Macslut to remove widgets (hence Snit's reason
>> for initially informing him of the fact), yet, Snit clearly indicates
>> his belief, via his clarified definition of "technical knowledge", that
>> Macslut, at the least, knew what folder to go to. I wonder if, in Snit's
>> mind, Macslut met Snit's other criteria - "knowing that it was even
>> possible" to remove widgets? You'd think so because, according to Snit,
>> this was something Macslut "already knew"... but with Snit... one never
>> knows;)
See how twisted you get yourself, Tim. Here are the facts again:
Snit
2:24 PM:
> In article <C14A815A.6171D%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-0E0D5C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 8:52 AM:
>>
>> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
>>
>> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
>> the problem
>>
>> * I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
>> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
>> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
>>
>> * Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
>>
>> * No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
>>
>> * In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
>> tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
>> error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
And look at how Tim's reading comprehension problems come back to bite him
on the ass... AGAIN:
> So now it's 'bad info on their site'? Too bad your 'ouch' proved you agreed
> with it, making you totally technically incompetence and unintelligent.
LOL! How can Tim Adams get so confused over such simple concepts? Really,
I cannot imagine being as ignorant as he is. Amazing.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-89BCF7.20...@news.west.earthlink.net on 10/4/06
> 5:28 PM:
>
> >>>> Ah, good! Now we can talk about OS X and pull this thread back on
> >>>> topic...
>
> > I see snit is still running from the question. so typical. Let me try
> > again
> > michael - which version of OS X were you referring to when you claimed that
> > "in past versions of OS X there was a flaw with auto-installed widgets"
> > when
> > previous version of OS X (remembering that OS X 10.4 WAS the current OS
> > when
> > this discussion began) didn't support widgets at all?
>
> 10.4.0: Dashboard w/ widgets introduced.
> In this version of OS X their was a flaw that lead to a risk of
> malware from auto-installed widgets. Donald started a thread
> referencing these, MacSlut responded by asking how many brain
> cells it would take to protect oneself, and I responded to
> Macslut by pointing out that it takes more than "brain cells",
> it also takes technical competence... as even the Apple web
> site indicates the auto-installed widgets could not be
> removed (nor other non-relevant widgets, if you care).
> Tim Adams responded to me by commenting about the off-topic
> Apple installed widgets. He was corrected by no less than
> two people, and in the conversation it became very clear
> he believed the tilde meant "the hard drive only", to the
> point where he even incorrectly insisted articles presented to
> him used the notation that way.
>
> 10.4.1: Dashboard updated... the flaw that lead to the risk of malware
> was corrected.
>
> The conversation in question was OS X 10.4.0, which was, at the time, the
> current version of OS X but is now, clearly, a past version.
Technically your are WRONG - again.
Tiger (OS X 10.4.x) is the _current_ OS
Past OS's were Panther and Leopard and at least one other I've forgotten the
name of. But then that really doesn't matter since the original discussion
started with the current version was 10.4.0 and you're now claiming, wrongly,
that _past versions_ (ie: before 10.4.0) included an auto-install widget flaw.
Something I sure would like you to prove.
Of course, I'm still waiting for you to prove that Apple's web site dealt with
auto-installed widgets - a claim you've made several times but run from when I
ask you to back it up? Wonder if that's because Apple doesn't support third
party software, which included the auto-install widget feature.
~more babbling as snit tried to hide his ignorance in a bunch of crap snipped
Snit
2:33 PM:
>>>> The topic was A.
>>>> I referenced an article that talked about A. It also talked
>>>> about B, but that was not relevant to the conversation.
>>>> Tim Adams talked about B.
>>>
>>> Yet when confronted with reality, like the FACT that Apple doesn't support
>>> third party software, and the FACT that the web site you linked to was on
>>> Apple's web site and didn't mention, or reference in any way, shape or form
>>> Auto-install widgets, you run away as fast as you can.
>>>
>>> So when are you going to offer any support that the Apple web page did
>>> support
>>> third party (ie: auto-installed widgets) software?
>>
>> Who said anything about the page supporting third party software, Tim?
>
> YOU did by claiming that their web site dealt with Auto Install widgets -
> something that didn't come from Apple but third party developers.
Ah, I get it... you do not understand the context... you see, Tim, yes, the
Apple page in question talks *in general terms* about third party
software... but it does not support any specific third party software.
Knowing how poor your reading comprehension is I should have been more
specific. Here, let me spell it out for you:
* The page in question talks in *general terms* about how to work with
third party software, but does not talk about any *specific* third
party software.
* Tim Adams noted that Apple pages that talk about *specific* third party
software have disclaimers and mistakenly believed any reference to how
*general* references to third party software would have the same
disclaimer.
* Snit ripped Tim Adams' claims apart by pointing to other pages that
talk about third party software *in general* but do not have the
disclaimer that accompanies specific discussions of third party
software. Here are the links:
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301572>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302061>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301629>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302240>
IS that simple enough for you to understand, Tim, or are your reading
comprehension problems going to prevent you from understanding even when it
is spelled out so clearly? My guess: you will continue to fail to
understand simple concepts... your history shows that too strongly.
Heck, look at your below BS ... it proves your inability to understand what
you read:
> So now where is your proof that the Apple web page deals with Auto install
> widgets? It didn't! Live with it. Your a liar and a troll as proved by this
> YET ANOTHER new thread as you continue to be proved a liar in the half dozen
> other threads dealing with the same topic. Too bad you never learned to READ.
See, Tim, you cannot understand what you read. Thanks for proving it
*again*.
>> Oh, that's right... *nobody*! From the debate summary:
>>
>> ---------
>>
>> 2 Tim insists that the link I responded to MacSlut with (Part I:3) was in
>> reference to Apple-installed widgets only. His "evidence" is that on
>> other pages where Apple mentions third party software by name they also
>> have a standard disclaimer.
>>
>> Tim's "evidence" did not hold up to scrutiny at all - the page in
>> question did not talk about any given third party product, just how
>> OS X handles third party products in general. I was able to link to
>> several other similar pages on Apple's site that also did not have
>> the disclaimer. I purposely found and pointed to ones that made
>> references to third party software.
>> <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301572>
>> <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302061>
>> <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301629>
>> <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302240>
>>
>> ---------
>>
>> It is not as if this is the first time you have tried that desperate plea to
>> be seen as reasonable... LOL!
>>
>> And Tim's trolling comes back to smack him on the ass *again*!
Gee, Tim, no comment from you when your silly theories based on your
inability to read come smacking you in the ass. Again!
LOL!
--
€ A partial subset is not synonymous with the whole
€ A person's actions speak more about him than what others say
€ Apple doesn't provide as many options as the rest of the PC industry
Snit
2:26 PM:
> In article <C14A8904.61732%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
>> noone-F43D8B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 9:58 AM:
>>
>>>> Again, Steve, the facts
>>>
>>>
>>> ... are exactly as I posted them above? Yes, I know
>>>
>> Funny how you feel the need to snip and run, Steve.
>>
>> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
>>
>> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
>> the problem
>>
>> * I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
>> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
>> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
>>
>> * Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
>
> A lie that you continue to make but cannot back up in any way.
You keep telling yourself that, Tim, but keep in mind the Google record
proves you are a liar
In a thread discussing the malware risk of Dashboard widget, Tim Adams
jumped in and stated:
-----
If you want to remove a widget from the Widget bar, open your hard
drive, open the folder called 'Library' then the folder called 'Widget'
and remove the item you no longer want to appear in the bar.
-----
Please note, that procedure would fail to remove a single one of these
auto-installed widgets (assuming a standard install without someone moving
files around).
>> * No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
Tim was told by Daniel Johnson:
-----
That's not where these auto-installed widgets go. You should open your
*home directory*, then Library, then Widgets.
-----
You did not know where the widgets in question went, Tim... and even when
you were shown articles describing it to you in detail you insisted on
sticking to your erroneous claim that the tilde meant "the hard drive only".
You were wrong, and now you and your co-trolls are trying to get revenge for
my pointing out your error and your ignorance. Oh well.
>>
>> * In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
>> tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
>> error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
--
Snit
2:43 PM:
>> 10.4.0: Dashboard w/ widgets introduced.
>> In this version of OS X their was a flaw that lead to a risk of
>> malware from auto-installed widgets. Donald started a thread
>> referencing these, MacSlut responded by asking how many brain
>> cells it would take to protect oneself, and I responded to
>> Macslut by pointing out that it takes more than "brain cells",
>> it also takes technical competence... as even the Apple web
>> site indicates the auto-installed widgets could not be
>> removed (nor other non-relevant widgets, if you care).
>> Tim Adams responded to me by commenting about the off-topic
>> Apple installed widgets. He was corrected by no less than
>> two people, and in the conversation it became very clear
>> he believed the tilde meant "the hard drive only", to the
>> point where he even incorrectly insisted articles presented to
>> him used the notation that way.
>>
>> 10.4.1: Dashboard updated... the flaw that lead to the risk of malware
>> was corrected.
>>
>> The conversation in question was OS X 10.4.0, which was, at the time, the
>> current version of OS X but is now, clearly, a past version.
>>
>>>>>> that there was a malware risk associated with auto-installed widgets.
>>
>> Note: Tim Adams does not answer the question.
Note: Tim Adams still fails to answer a simple question.
>>
>>>> Do you deny, Tim, that in past versions of OS X, say 10.4.0, that there was
>>>> a flaw in OS X that lead to a malware risk from auto-installed widgets?
>>
>> Note: Tim Adams does not answer the question.
Note: Tim Adams *still* cannot answer the question.
>>> Sorry michael, the 'past version of OS X' when the discussion was taking
>>> place would have been 10.3.x, which didn't support widgets. Apparently you
>>> didn't know that.
>>>
>> I cannot stop you from lying about my views. OK. I can accept that...
>> though I will state I do not like it when you lie about me. Oh well, I also
>> will not lose sleep over your dishonesty.
>
> Technically your are WRONG - again.
>
> Tiger (OS X 10.4.x) is the _current_ OS
The current version of OS X is 10.4.8. It was updated recently. Before
that it was 10.4.7. Then 10.4.6... all the way back to 10.4.0... and even
before that there were earlier versions.
I am not interested in your semantic BS as to if an update that updates the
*version number* also updates the version. Seems it does, but if you want
to only count major updates as updates so be it. Really this is now a
side-semantic battle you are pushing to obfuscate the fact that I was
exactly correct when I said that at the time of the conversation that
version of OS X had a vulnerability, but that an update corrected that.
> Past OS's were Panther and Leopard and at least one other I've forgotten the
> name of. But then that really doesn't matter since the original discussion
> started with the current version was 10.4.0 and you're now claiming, wrongly,
> that _past versions_ (ie: before 10.4.0) included an auto-install widget flaw.
> Something I sure would like you to prove.
Note how you do not understand my comments and claim that I stated pre-10.4
computers had widgets. Amazing how poor your reading comprehension is. In
the end, Tim, I have never claimed that any Mac OS prior to 10.4 had
widgets... but you likely actually think I did. Isn't that funny!
> Of course, I'm still waiting for you to prove that Apple's web site dealt with
> auto-installed widgets - a claim you've made several times but run from when I
> ask you to back it up? Wonder if that's because Apple doesn't support third
> party software, which included the auto-install widget feature.
Been there, done that, have the t-shirt... but you did not understand what
you were reading. Here, from the summary of this silly debate:
-----
2 Tim insists that the link I responded to MacSlut with (Part I:3) was in
reference to Apple-installed widgets only. His "evidence" is that on
other pages where Apple mentions third party software by name they also
have a standard disclaimer.
Tim's "evidence" did not hold up to scrutiny at all - the page in
question did not talk about any given third party product, just how
OS X handles third party products in general. I was able to link to
several other similar pages on Apple's site that also did not have
the disclaimer. I purposely found and pointed to ones that made
references to third party software.
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301572>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302061>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301629>
<http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302240>
-----
Maybe, just maybe, someday you will get the skills to understand what you
are reading and you will see how your claims are ripped apart... but I am
not holding my breath for you to gain that ability. You have shown too many
times you simply do not understand what you read. Oh well.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-824564....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 11:16 AM:
>
> > In article <C14A8AB5.61734%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-D52F28....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 9:57 AM:
> >>
> >>> In article <C14A815A.6171D%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> >>> Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >>>> noone-0E0D5C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 8:52 AM:
> >>>>
> >>>> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
> >>>> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
> >>>> the problem
> >>>> * I pointed out how it took and how an intelligent
> >>>> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
> >>>> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
> >>>
> >>> 1. How was a person supposed to deduce all of that from what you
> >>> initially wrote?
> >>
> >> Using reading comprehension...
> >
> > Uh hunh...
>
> Yes, Steve.
(snip irrelevant crap)
> > so point to the part where you specifically told Macslut in
> > that 'initial' (see the words "initially wrote" up above) post that
> > referenced the Apple webpage that Apple had bad info on their site. Oh,
> > that's right... you can't point to that because it's as non existent as
> > the "earlier posts" you warned Tim you would show him.
Lack of any comment by you duly noted.
> >> something you do not have. Of course, if
> >> someone was not sure, they could ask... which you did.
> >
> > I clearly stated "initially wrote" up above, Snit... it's obvious who
> > has the reading comprehension problem here. Whether I, or anyone else
> > asked later, *after* Tim's reply, is totally irrelevant to my point.
> >
> >> I clarified, and you *still* do not get it.
> >
> > My point is that events didn't occur on the timeline you keep trying to
> > pretend that they did. When Tim first addressed your Apple webpage
> > reference you hadn't yet clarified any of the stuff you subsequently
> > clarified. But hey, thanks for pointing out that you didn't initially
> > make things as clear as you are trying to pretend you did... (not that
> > it was "actually" necessary). This underscores your newest lie that
> > people "followed" you... events show this happened the other way around.
Lack of any comment by you duly noted.
> >
> >> OK, so you cannot understand what you read. I will
> >> not argue with you about that - you have shown it as a fact.
> >
> > What I have shown is an unwillingness to agree to your bogus timeline
> > and the things you are labeling as "fact".
> >
> >>> 2. How do you claim that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets
> >>
> >> Using reading comprehension... something you do not have. Again, reading
> >> MacSluts comments it was quite unlikely he did not know how to remove the
> >> widgets in question.
> >
> > Which, as you said, required "technical competence". The question
> > remains: How was Macslut able to remove widgets if he didn't possess the
> > requisite "technical competence" and be cognizant of that same fact?
> >
> > It's a rather mysterious position you have managed to thrust Macslut
> > into... how do you explain it?
> >
> > See? Even when you hack the question in half before you reply to it, the
> > essence of it lives on. Sorry, you're not escaping this reality.
Lack of any comment by you duly noted.
> >> The fact you need to read *and* understand in order to
> >> figure that out is something you do not have the ability to do. I get
> >> that... this is another example of your poor reading comprehension.
> >>
> >>> while asserting that he was unaware it was "technical competence" that
> >>> enabled him to do so?
> >
> >
> > Note: No comment on the latter half of this question from you. Gee, I
> > wonder why;)
> >
> >>> You're obviously lying on number 1 and making no sense at all on 2.
> >>
> >> And you are clearly not understanding the facts.
> >
> > I understand what *you* are calling "facts" and I also understand the
> > bogus timeline you tried to sell and no one bought because google proved
> > otherwise.
> >
> >> They are listed above. Oh
> >> well. You can twist words all you like, Steve, but you cannot change the
> >> facts. Sad for you, eh?
> >>>
> >>> (snip stuff irrelevant to my issue with you)
> >>
> >> Your "issue" with me, Steve, is
> >
> > ...to get you to answer a couple of simple questions that will show you
> >
> > are lying here. You've done that... thanks.
>
> See how
... you won't answer? Yes, I do.
Snit
> (snip irrelevant crap)
That's all you can do, Steve, being that simple concept go way, way over
your head. Here the simple concepts are... again:
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
I am willing to bet six months of no posting to CSMA that you will not be
able to understand those points. If you fail to understand those points,
you have to leave CSMA for six months. If you show you do understand them,
I will leave for six months. Deal?
LOL! Should be fun to watch you run from that one!
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-15FB6B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 4:20 PM:
>
> > (snip irrelevant crap)
>
> That's all
... you ever write? I agree... and I wish you'd knock it off.
Snit
>>> (snip irrelevant crap)
>>
>> That's all you can do, Steve, being that simple concept go way, way over your
>> head. Here the simple concepts are... again:
>>
>> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
>>
>> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
>> the problem
>>
>> * I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
>> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
>> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
>>
>> * Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
>>
>> * No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
>>
>> * In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
>> tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
>> error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
>>
>> I am willing to bet six months of no posting to CSMA that you will not be
>> able to understand those points. If you fail to understand those points, you
>> have to leave CSMA for six months. If you show you do understand them, I
>> will leave for six months. Deal?
>>
>> LOL! Should be fun to watch you run from that one!
>
> ... you ever write? I agree... and I wish you'd knock it off.
Hey, Steve, you ran from my bet. I knew you would. You are so damned
predictable.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-162C3C....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 5:09 PM:
>
> >>> (snip irrelevant crap)
> >>
> >> That's all
... you write (irrelevant crap)? Yes, it is.
Steve Carroll
<teadams$2$0$0$3-B3C547.17...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Yeah... but he claims he knew all about it. Remember his warning to you
in that malware/dashboard thread?
"Do you need me to point you to my earlier posts where I talk about
Widgets?"
Have you seen any of these posts? LOL! Yeah... no one else has, either;)
> >
> > Snit's clarifying definition:
> > "Mostly correct - the bigger challenge would be knowing that it was even
> > possible and then knowing - or finding - the correct folder."
> >
> > Snit has indicated that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets...
> > is he saying that Macslut was able to do so without knowing it was
> > possible? No, this doesn't make any sense. OK... so is Snit saying
> > Macslut was able to remove the widgets without knowing what folder to go
> > to? This makes no sense, either... but Snit provides the comedy in the
> > very same post with:
> >
> > "There was no reason to assume MacSlut did not already know what folder
> > to go to."
> >
> > So, Snit is saying that Macslut was unaware that it was "technical
> > competence" that enabled Macslut to remove widgets (hence Snit's reason
> > for initially informing him of the fact), yet, Snit clearly indicates
> > his belief, via his clarified definition of "technical knowledge", that
> > Macslut, at the least, knew what folder to go to. I wonder if, in Snit's
> > mind, Macslut met Snit's other criteria - "knowing that it was even
> > possible" to remove widgets? You'd think so because, according to Snit,
> > this was something Macslut "already knew"... but with Snit... one never
> > knows;)
--
Snit
The Offer:
---------
* Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
* MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
the problem
* I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
* Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in
question
* No less than two people corrected Tim Adams
* In the course of the conversation it became clear Tim believed the
tilde meant "the hard drive only" and could not figure out his
error even when shown articles that used the notation correctly
I am willing to bet six months of no posting to CSMA that you will not
be able to understand those points. If you fail to understand those
points, you have to leave CSMA for six months. If you show you do
understand them, I will leave for six months. Deal?
LOL! Should be fun to watch you run from that one!
---------
The response; Steve runs from my bet, first by snipping, running, and
posting just this line of nonsense:
... you ever write? I agree... and I wish you'd knock it off.
And when that was pointed out, Steve removed all text, and spews one of his
fantasies about me:
Subject: Steve Carroll wouldn't take Snit's word for anything...
and no other sane person would, either
Fact is, Steve, you cannot comprehend what you read and, as you have made
clear, even you know it... clearly not even you completely believe the
fantasies you try to portray as "facts".
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> noone-FCF247....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 7:55 PM:
>
> The Offer:
>
... is as ridiculous as it author.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-B3C547.17...@news.west.earthlink.net on 10/5/06
> 2:21 PM:
>
> The facts:
>
> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
>
> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
> the problem
>
> * I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
>
> * Tim Adams jumped in
and proved you a total fool and idiot. Your 'ouch' statement proved just how
totally ignorant, and just how totally incompetent you really are.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c4a7dccb9f87ac09?hl=en&
More babbbling as snit tries to run from reality snipped
Tim Adams
Steve Carroll <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
and now, in another thread, he's claiming that 'in past versions of OS X there
was a flaw with auto-installed widgets". I'm still trying to get him to point
out which version before Tiger, which is the current version, even supported
widgets.
>
> > >
> > > Snit's clarifying definition:
> > > "Mostly correct - the bigger challenge would be knowing that it was even
> > > possible and then knowing - or finding - the correct folder."
> > >
> > > Snit has indicated that Macslut "already knew" how to remove widgets...
> > > is he saying that Macslut was able to do so without knowing it was
> > > possible? No, this doesn't make any sense. OK... so is Snit saying
> > > Macslut was able to remove the widgets without knowing what folder to go
> > > to? This makes no sense, either... but Snit provides the comedy in the
> > > very same post with:
> > >
> > > "There was no reason to assume MacSlut did not already know what folder
> > > to go to."
> > >
> > > So, Snit is saying that Macslut was unaware that it was "technical
> > > competence" that enabled Macslut to remove widgets (hence Snit's reason
> > > for initially informing him of the fact), yet, Snit clearly indicates
> > > his belief, via his clarified definition of "technical knowledge", that
> > > Macslut, at the least, knew what folder to go to. I wonder if, in Snit's
> > > mind, Macslut met Snit's other criteria - "knowing that it was even
> > > possible" to remove widgets? You'd think so because, according to Snit,
> > > this was something Macslut "already knew"... but with Snit... one never
> > > knows;)
--
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
Please note how snit doctored the post to add in information I didn't reply to.
So typical of an idiot when he's been proved to be a liar like snit.
Snit
1:25 PM:
> and now, in another thread, he's claiming that 'in past versions of OS X there
> was a flaw with auto-installed widgets". I'm still trying to get him to point
> out which version before Tiger, which is the current version, even supported
> widgets.
From that thread:
-----
10.4.0: Dashboard w/ widgets introduced.
In this version of OS X their was a flaw that lead to a risk of
malware from auto-installed widgets. Donald started a thread
referencing these, MacSlut responded by asking how many brain
cells it would take to protect oneself, and I responded to
Macslut by pointing out that it takes more than "brain cells",
it also takes technical competence... as even the Apple web
site indicates the auto-installed widgets could not be
removed (nor other non-relevant widgets, if you care).
Tim Adams responded to me by commenting about the off-topic
Apple installed widgets. He was corrected by no less than
two people, and in the conversation it became very clear
he believed the tilde meant "the hard drive only", to the
point where he even incorrectly insisted articles presented to
him used the notation that way.
10.4.1: Dashboard updated... the flaw that lead to the risk of malware
was corrected.
...
The current version of OS X is 10.4.8. It was updated recently. Before
that it was 10.4.7. Then 10.4.6... all the way back to 10.4.0... and even
before that there were earlier versions.
I am not interested in your semantic BS as to if an update that updates the
*version number* also updates the version. Seems it does, but if you want
to only count major updates as updates so be it. Really this is now a
side-semantic battle you are pushing to obfuscate the fact that I was
exactly correct when I said that at the time of the conversation that
version of OS X had a vulnerability, but that an update corrected that.
----
Not it is true that the error was not fully corrected until 10.4.2, so I
stand corrected on that detail, but note how Tim Adams insists:
I'm still trying to get him to point out which version before Tiger,
which is the current version, even supported widgets.
Note how it is once again proved that Tim Adams cannot understand what he
reads.
Tim Adams
Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> "Tim Adams" <teadams$2$0$0$3...@earthlink.net> stated in post
> teadams$2$0$0$3-2E3D86.17...@news.west.earthlink.net on 10/5/06
> 2:26 PM:
>
> > In article <C14A8904.61732%SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>,
> > Snit <SN...@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Carroll" <no...@nowhere.net> stated in post
> >> noone-F43D8B....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 10/5/06 9:58 AM:
> >>
> >>>> Again, Steve, the facts
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ... are exactly as I posted them above? Yes, I know
> >>>
> >> Funny how you feel the need to snip and run, Steve.
> >>
> >> * Daniel started a thread about the risk of auto-installed widgets.
> >>
> >> * MacSlut insinuated it did not take many "brain cells" to avoid
> >> the problem
> >>
> >> * I pointed out how it took technical competence and how an intelligent
> >> person might not figure out how - and showed why: Apple had bad info
> >> on their site about how to remove the widgets in question (and others)
> >>
> >> * Tim Adams jumped in talking about widgets other than the ones in question
> >
> > A lie that you continue to make but cannot back up in any way.
>
> You keep telling yourself that, Tim, but keep in mind the Google record
> proves you are a liar
>
> In a thread discussing the malware risk of Dashboard widget,
Where you changed the topic to Apple's widgets by including a link to an article
on Apple's web site.
Where you agreed with Apple's article and posted your 'ouch' showing you were
totally clueless in widgets.
Where I pointed out how wrong Apple's article was and clearly (for anyboth that
can comprehend the english language that is) stated I was talking about those
widgets installed by Tiger.
~repeated lies by snit who has a major reading problem snipped