Re: David Lipman lying asshole
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>
>> Butts' hosts file blocks legitimate antimalware sites.
>
> Which entries (in the PCbutts hosts file) are those?
>
> Please list them in your reply.
David gave you the list. What do you think? The MVPs website is listed, as
is Malke's. For me, that would be enough, but there are more, and all of
them are proven sites.
--
...if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively
calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free
thought--not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for
the thought that we hate. Mr. Justice Holmes, 279 U.S. 644 (1929)
Virus Guy
> > Which entries (in the PCbutts hosts file) are those?
> >
> > Please list them in your reply.
>
> David gave you the list. What do you think?
I have read the description of the MVPS hosts file, but I can't locate a
description of the PCbutts file nor does it seem to exist without being
part of an executable package which I can't decompress without running
it (and I choose not to run it). Based on Lipman's list excerpt, and
based on what a hosts file should (and should not) contain from a
machine-protection POV, I am of the opinion that the PCbutts hosts file
should not contain those entries.
So both the PCbutts and the MVPS hosts file overstep their stated or
implied design function of performing machine-level protection from
known malware domains. They both have entries that are essentially
performing political or ideological censorship or content-control over
the end user. The end-user can not trust the descriptions of the
criteria for inclusion in both lists or the motivations of the list
authors.
Once such entries exist in a list, there are no assurances that other
such entries will be added in the future, again without the knowledge of
the end user.
The end user always has the choice to use any list - or no list.
But a false or misleading construction and/or description of a hosts
list is still false or misleading - regardless if no-one or everyone
uses the list.
1PW
Hey VG:
The latest edition of the MVPS HOSTS file came out earlier today. I'm
happy with, and grateful for, its current content. Most others will
be too. I'm sure few will comment out any lines that refer to a thief
we know.
Warm regards to you,
Pete
--
1PW @?6A62?FEH9:DE=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]
David H. Lipman
| Hey VG:
| The latest edition of the MVPS HOSTS file came out earlier today. I'm
| happy with, and grateful for, its current content. Most others will
| be too. I'm sure few will comment out any lines that refer to a thief
| we know.
| Warm regards to you,
| Pete
| --
| 1PW @?6A62?FEH9:DE=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]
I think I'll muddy the waters and bit and add the HpHosts file which ALSO blocks all of
Butts' sites :-)
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
The Real Truth MVP
hosts file does not block all mine. So you are WRONG again. Keep trying
maybe in a few years if you are lucky you will get something right.
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:h4lkn...@news6.newsguy.com...
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>
>>> Which entries (in the PCbutts hosts file) are those?
>>>
>>> Please list them in your reply.
>>
>> David gave you the list. What do you think?
>
> I have read the description of the MVPS hosts file, but I can't
> locate a description of the PCbutts file nor does it seem to exist
> without being part of an executable package which I can't decompress
> without running it (and I choose not to run it). Based on Lipman's
> list excerpt, and based on what a hosts file should (and should not)
> contain from a machine-protection POV, I am of the opinion that the
> PCbutts hosts file should not contain those entries.
>
> So both the PCbutts and the MVPS hosts file overstep their stated or
> implied design function of performing machine-level protection from
> known malware domains. They both have entries that are essentially
> performing political or ideological censorship or content-control over
> the end user. The end-user can not trust the descriptions of the
> criteria for inclusion in both lists or the motivations of the list
> authors.
It's remarkable that having written the first paragraph, you fail to
understand the point, as evidenced by your having written the second
paragraph.
> Once such entries exist in a list, there are no assurances that other
> such entries will be added in the future, again without the knowledge
> of the end user.
>
> The end user always has the choice to use any list - or no list.
>
> But a false or misleading construction and/or description of a hosts
> list is still false or misleading - regardless if no-one or everyone
> uses the list.
I think this serves as an object lesson to those you have been debating
about how they present the case against Butts, but even at that, I disagree
with your conclusion.
Virus Guy
> > So both the PCbutts and the MVPS hosts file overstep their stated
> > or implied design function of performing machine-level protection
> > from known malware domains. They both have entries that are
> > essentially performing political or ideological censorship or
> > content-control over the end user. The end-user can not trust
> > the descriptions of the criteria for inclusion in both lists or
> > the motivations of the list authors.
>
> It's remarkable that having written the first paragraph, you fail
> to understand the point,
And what-ever that point is, you're not going state it - are you?
> I think this serves as an object lesson to those you have been
> debating about how they present the case against Butts, but even
> at that, I disagree with your conclusion.
I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing about.
My criticism of the mvps hosts file and the "conclusion" that it
contains entries that function as a form of censorship?
I don't think I've made any other conclusion.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Virus Guy <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>
>>> So both the PCbutts and the MVPS hosts file overstep their stated
>>> or implied design function of performing machine-level protection
>>> from known malware domains. They both have entries that are
>>> essentially performing political or ideological censorship or
>>> content-control over the end user. The end-user can not trust
>>> the descriptions of the criteria for inclusion in both lists or
>>> the motivations of the list authors.
>>
>> It's remarkable that having written the first paragraph, you fail
>> to understand the point,
>
> And what-ever that point is, you're not going state it - are you?
Butts is blocking antimalware sites that have been proven good and useful,
much the same way malware programs try to block good malware removers.
That's why he's on the list, not, as you would have it, for "political"
reasons.
>> I think this serves as an object lesson to those you have been
>> debating about how they present the case against Butts, but even
>> at that, I disagree with your conclusion.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing about.
What you replied to was a repetitive whine (on my part) about the
ineffective and stalkerish way Butts has been dealt with by certain people
(including me, at one time).
> My criticism of the mvps hosts file and the "conclusion" that it
> contains entries that function as a form of censorship?
*All* the entries are a form of censorship--one to which the users have
consented.
You seem to be taking the position that the MVPs have an obligation to
explain their reasoning for the inclusion for each entry such that the user
can make an informed decision. That's not at all practical, and if a user
wants to know what each and every entry is for, due diligence calls for
doing ones own dirty work. Either that or find a different hosts file
provider.
> I don't think I've made any other conclusion.
We disagree about your singling out the Butts-related entries as some form
of political censorship.
Leythos
> But a false or misleading construction and/or description of a hosts
> list is still false or misleading - regardless if no-one or everyone
> uses the list.
>
And you're too STUPID to see that the MVP site is not misleading, that
it clearly describes what the file is for and the type of sites it
contains. The problem is YOU and your head stuck up your a$$.
--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Leythos
> My criticism of the mvps hosts file and the "conclusion" that it
> contains entries that function as a form of censorship?
>
> I don't think I've made any other conclusion.
>
Sure you have, you've shown that you can't read/comprehend what is
written clearly on a website.
You've shown that you don't understand the definition of censorship.
You've shown that you are not willing to accept that you use products
without understanding them and that you will continue to attack anyone
and anything in order to keep from admitting your error.
The Real Truth MVP
AFTER they put me in theirs not the other way around.
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:7d7jd8F...@mid.individual.net...
Leythos
says...
>
> Oh come on now RLK get your facts straight. I added them to my hosts file
> AFTER they put me in theirs not the other way around.
And yet you still stalk all of them in your posting each and every post.
Dustin Cook
> From: "1PW" <barcrna...@nby.pbz>
>
>
>| Hey VG:
>
>| The latest edition of the MVPS HOSTS file came out earlier today.
>| I'm happy with, and grateful for, its current content. Most others
>| will be too. I'm sure few will comment out any lines that refer to a
>| thief we know.
>
>| Warm regards to you,
>
>| Pete
>| --
>| 1PW @?6A62?FEH9:DE=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]
>
> I think I'll muddy the waters and bit and add the HpHosts file which
> ALSO blocks all of Butts' sites :-)
>
>
Awe.. the thread was going to die. :)
--
Regards,
Dustin Cook
Malware Researcher
MalwareBytes - http://www.malwarebytes.org
FromTheRafters
news:Xns9C56BE743E8...@69.16.185.247...
> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
> news:h4lkn...@news6.newsguy.com:
>
>> From: "1PW" <barcrna...@nby.pbz>
>>
>>
>>| Hey VG:
>>
>>| The latest edition of the MVPS HOSTS file came out earlier today.
>>| I'm happy with, and grateful for, its current content. Most others
>>| will be too. I'm sure few will comment out any lines that refer to
>>a
>>| thief we know.
>>
>>| Warm regards to you,
>>
>>| Pete
>>| --
>>| 1PW @?6A62?FEH9:DE=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]
>>
>> I think I'll muddy the waters and bit and add the HpHosts file which
>> ALSO blocks all of Butts' sites :-)
>>
>>
>
> Awe.. the thread was going to die. :)
It's got a shiny new subject line - all dressed up ...no place to go.
HpHosta (EMD) - Malware Distribution vs. Unauthorized Downloads (MVP
Hosts file)
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
The Real Truth MVP <t...@void.com> wrote:
> Oh come on now RLK get your facts straight. I added them to my hosts
> file AFTER they put me in theirs not the other way around.
I was around for both events, and I don't recall it that way, but I could be
wrong.
I distinctly recall, however, that you were stealing code from a number of
sources prior to either event.
Y'know what's sad, Rosie? You've alienated everyone--even Mara no longer
stands by you.
Virus Guy
> > And what-ever that point is, you're not going state it - are you?
>
> Butts is blocking antimalware sites that have been proven good and
> useful, much the same way malware programs try to block good malware
> removers. That's why he's on the list, not, as you would have it,
> for "political" reasons.
The MVPS list blocks the PCbutts domain (and possibly others?), even
though the PCbutts domain (and others?) does not host files that have
been proven to contain malware.
The PCbutts list blocks the MVPS domain (and possibly others?), even
though the MVPS domain (and others?) does not host files that have been
proven to contain malware.
If those are not true statements, then please indicate how or why.
Any hosts file that advertizes itself as containing entries soley for
the purpose of providing machine-level protection against malware - yet
it contains entries for domains that do not host malware, those entries
are what I call censorship. Those entries are there for the express
purpose of preventing the intentional access desired by the end user to
those sites. The motivation for including those sites in such a list
can only be for political or ideological reasons.
> > I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing about.
>
> What you replied to was a repetitive whine (on my part) about
> the ineffective and stalkerish way Butts has been dealt with
> by certain people (including me, at one time).
I have observed the comments and arguments directed at PCbutts. I don't
think I've commented specifically about that.
I've been asking questions about this so-called stolen software or code
- who are the original authors, what have they said in public, why would
PCbutts "steal" it if it's already publically available, does PCbutts
provide any added value to that code for an end-user, does the PCbutts
domains host real, bona-fide malware, etc.
> > My criticism of the mvps hosts file and the "conclusion" that it
> > contains entries that function as a form of censorship?
>
> *All* the entries are a form of censorship--one to which the users
> have consented.
A very disengenuous argument.
The list should not contain entries that a user might make a conscious
effort to browse to if those domains do not contain threats or exploits
to the infrastructure of his / her system.
Since you can't argue against me that those entries are a way to
excercise censorship over the end user's web experience, you backtrack
and say that all host files are a form of censorship, and in doing so
severely twist the concept or notion of what censorship means in this
context.
But I'll play your game.
A legit, unbiased hosts file censors what a machine is exposed to.
A biased or misleading hosts file censors what a person is exposed to.
Rational people do not make conscious efforts to censor themselves.
Rational people who seek hosts files are making a conscious effort to
censor what their computer is exposed to.
> You seem to be taking the position that the MVPs have an
> obligation to explain their reasoning for the inclusion
> for each entry such that the user can make an informed
> decision.
The authors only need to state that every entry in their hosts file is
there to protect the user's PC from a domain known to host malware, and
that the definition of malware is software used to exploit or cause harm
to a computer.
With thousands of entries, it's absurd to expect that a user would read
the attribution for every entry. It's something they don't do with a
virus definition file, so why put the focus on the user?
And even if they did read the attributions, you will note that the
PCbutts entries are annotated with a term that does not appear in the
text describing what the hosts file contains. How do you explain that?
I guess what you're saying is that if I commit fraud on you, it's ok
(for me) as long as I say I won't - because even if I do, you're the one
at fault for believing the accuracy of any supporting material I provide
and it's wrong to look critically at me.
> > I don't think I've made any other conclusion.
>
> We disagree about your singling out the Butts-related entries
> as some form of political censorship.
If the Butts-related entries are not moviated by protection from
bona-fide malware, then what else other than politics is the reason?
The Real Truth MVP
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:7d9h7rF...@mid.individual.net...
The Real Truth MVP
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"Virus Guy" <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in message
news:4A6F9411...@Guy.com...
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
I've said what I've had to say. I'm not interested in debating what
censorship means on usenet/the internet (given that "free speech" has
nothing to do with privately owned servers). Make your own hosts file.
Problem solved.
Leythos
> The MVPS list blocks the PCbutts domain (and possibly others?), even
> though the PCbutts domain (and others?) does not host files that have
> been proven to contain malware.
>
I posted the description of what is included in the MVP Host file, it's
NOT LIMITED TO MALWARE SITES - why can't you comprehend the description
of the website/function?
Virus Guy
> I've said what I've had to say. I'm not interested in debating what
> censorship means on usenet/the internet
The generic usenet closing post -> I'm going to say that I'm not going
to say any more.
If you're not interested in debating, then why did you post a response
saying that your not going to continue?
> (given that "free speech" has nothing to do with privately
> owned servers).
How is this a free speech issue?
How is this a server issue?
> Make your own hosts file.
> Problem solved.
There was never a problem.
There was never a request for a solution.
There was just the observation that certain hosts files contain
fraudulent or mischievous entries ostensibly to perform ideological
censorship upon the unsuspecting user.
I'm sure that these hosts files are very good at their stated design
function. It's too bad they taint their credibility with the inclusion
of entries that are designed to control (censor) the user's browsing
experience.
FromTheRafters
[...]
> I'm sure that these hosts files are very good at their stated design
> function. It's too bad they taint their credibility with the
> inclusion
> of entries that are designed to control (censor) the user's browsing
> experience.
All of the entries tied to the loopback address (most likely all of the
entries in there) are designed to censor the user's browsing experence.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> Any hosts file that advertizes itself as containing entries soley for
> the purpose of providing machine-level protection against malware - yet
> it contains entries for domains that do not host malware, those entries
> are what I call censorship.
There is where you're wrong.
They do not advertise solely for the protection against malware. They
block porn sites, advertising servers, and a lot more. Read the domain
names in the file...
> I've been asking questions about this so-called stolen software or
> code - who are the original authors, what have they said in public,
> why would PCbutts "steal" it if it's already publically available,
..so he can pretend he's doing something good. Unfortunately, most of it
is the work of others, where he changes copyrights and credits to
himself.
> does PCbutts provide any added value to that code for an end-user,
> does the PCbutts domains host real, bona-fide malware, etc.
..and the answer to that has been given to you .. I've lost count.
You (or someone using the nym of Virus Guy) has been posting in these
groups a long time. How come you have never read a thread about the
thieving Butts?
About three years ago, I saw a post where Butts told someone to get his
hosts file. I downloaded it as well. Butts made the fatal mistake of
forgetting to snip off the final line of the MVPS hosts file he stole:
#end of lines added by WinHelp2002
..which I posted in reply. Within the hour, Butts' host file was one
line shorter.
Why are you arguing in support of the thief?
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows
Virus Guy
> All of the entries tied to the loopback address (most likely all
> of the entries in there) are designed to censor the user's
> browsing experence.
The user should not experience or even realize any interference due to
the operation of the hosts file.
Interference (censorship) for the user is one thing, protection for the
machine is quite different.
It's sad that you have to agree that those entries are censorship and
then have to argue that the list as a whole functions to "censor" the
system (the user and the computer) from the internet.
You continue to evade the basic distinction that certain entries are
censoring content from the user, while others are censoring malware from
the machine. Your argument is that in both cases it's still censorship,
so there is no discrepency or conflict.
The MVPS description gives no indication that it contains entries for
the sole purpose of preventing the user from accessing material that
poses no harm to his system. There is no indication that it blocks
users from sites deemed to contain "unauthorized.downloads".
nobody >
VG, you probably have this same "censorship" issue with spam blocklists.
You also are suffering from the "If I repeat it often enough, it becomes
TRUTH" syndrome.
Virus Guy
> > Any hosts file that advertizes itself as containing entries soley
> > for the purpose of providing machine-level protection against
> > malware - yet it contains entries for domains that do not host
> > malware, those entries are what I call censorship.
>
> There is where you're wrong.
>
> They do not advertise solely for the protection against malware.
> They block porn sites, advertising servers, and a lot more. Read
> the domain names in the file...
Regarding advertizing and tracking domains - it is true that they
haven't been mentioned, but they are a form of "noise" to the browsing
experience and they are mentioned explicitly in the MVPS hosts file
description anyways. That doesn't change the fact that a primary
function of the hosts file is to protect the machine from domains known
to host malware, and in no case should it "shield" the user from content
unless the list is specifically designed (and stated) to do that. The
MVPS does not claim to shield or block the user from accessing otherwise
machine-harmless content, specifically a class of domains refered to as
"unauthorized.downloads".
Regarding porn sites - if those sites also host malware, then it is
perfectly consistent for those sites to be in the list. Are there
entries in the MVPS file that do not meet that criteria?
> > I've been asking questions about this so-called stolen
> > software or code - who are the original authors, what
> > have they said in public,
No answers to those questions still.
> > why would PCbutts "steal" it if it's already publically
> > available,
>
> ..so he can pretend he's doing something good.
And so if someone downloads and uses his software, isin't that a "good
thing" for that person?
Isin't it a "good thing" to have one more PC protected against malware,
or to have malware removed from a system, regardless how it's done?
> Unfortunately, most of it is the work of others, where he
> changes copyrights and credits to himself.
Who is listed as the authors of the software (the script files I
believe) that you claim PCButts is using or calling his own? Are their
names listed in the credits or copyright? If so, what are they?
Let's honor them here. Right here, right now. Let's pay tribute to
them.
Who are they?
> > does PCbutts provide any added value to that code for an
> > end-user, does the PCbutts domains host real, bona-fide
> > malware, etc.
>
> ..and the answer to that has been given to you ..
Actually, no. No it hasn't.
That question has not been answered.
But that's a typical usenet answer for someone that doesn't want to
answer a question. You simply say it's already been answered.
> > does PCbutts provide any added value to that code for an
> > end-user
Not answered.
> > does the PCbutts domains host real, bona-fide
> > malware, etc.
Not answered. Unless the absence of a positive answer means that no,
his domains do not host malware.
> How come you have never read a thread about the thieving Butts?
Because from what I've read, it all just seems like noise. No
substance, no hard information. Just juvenile rhetoric.
> Why are you arguing in support of the thief?
Why do you see these questions as a form of support?
Have I not stated that the PCbutts hosts file is equally depreciated as
the MVPS file for containing entries that are politically or
ideologically motivated?
Virus Guy
> VG, you probably have this same "censorship" issue with spam
> blocklists.
If you mean that I don't use them because it's a form of censorship,
then no, you're wrong.
Our SMTP server has an extensive IP and domain-based blocking list.
It's a ridiculous concept to think that virus definition files, firewall
rules, spam blocklists or host files are all forms of censorship.
If a computer were concious, sentient, then yes, the term censorship
might be appropriate.
Is the flu vaccine I get every year a form of viral "censorship" for my
body?
Do I censor my body against the sun when I use suntan lotion?
When I paint over a scratch on my car, am I censoring it against rust?
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> [Virus Guy wrote:]
>>> why would PCbutts "steal" it if it's already publically available,
>>
>> ..so he can pretend he's doing something good.
>
> And so if someone downloads and uses his software, isin't that a
> "good thing" for that person?
You're missing the point entirely. Still.
You walk into the library. You find a book entitled "The Sun Comes Up in
the East" by PCButts1. You open the cover and find that PCButts1 has
copyrighted this book in 2008.
You begin to read... you find it is a story about Jake Barnes, an
American correspondent living in Paris. You think ... "I've read this!"
You find that, omigosh, it was originally written by Ernest Hemingway
and originally named "The Sun Also Rises."
Do you get the point now? Butts takes other people's copyrighted work,
*strips their copyright notices* from the scripts and *adds his own*.
Do you think this is fair to the original authors?
> Who is listed as the authors of the software (the script files I
> believe) that you claim PCButts is using or calling his own? Are
> their names listed in the credits or copyright? If so, what are
> they?
>
> Let's honor them here. Right here, right now. Let's pay tribute to
> them.
>
> Who are they?
Once again, they have already been listed in these current threads about
the subject. How could you have missed reading them?
Roguefix... SilentRunners... MVPS Hosts...
Did you miss my post about catching Butts overlooking and leaving the
last line in the HOSTS file?
> That question has not been answered.
>
> But that's a typical usenet answer for someone that doesn't want to
> answer a question. You simply say it's already been answered.
Because it has.
This is not necessarily about whether Butts' offerings are malware. This
is all about Butts being a thief. Would you trust a thief?
FromTheRafters
> Is the flu vaccine I get every year a form of viral "censorship" for
> my
> body?
>
> Do I censor my body against the sun when I use suntan lotion?
>
> When I paint over a scratch on my car, am I censoring it against rust?
None of the above involve an authority filtering the information
available to its subordinates. None of the information is actually
filtered from the administrator as he or she has the authority to remove
or circumvent the filter(s). The administrator having the authority
makes he or she the censor for the users without the authority to remove
the filtering.
The Real Truth MVP
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
"nobody >" <useneth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dIGdneDP27t_SfLX...@supernews.com...
Leythos
> Interference (censorship) for the user is one thing, protection for the
> machine is quite different.
>
It's not censorship if you CHOOSE TO USE IT.
Virus Guy
> Do you get the point now? Butts takes other people's copyrighted
> work, *strips their copyright notices* from the scripts and *adds
> his own*.
>
> Do you think this is fair to the original authors?
I have made no comment so far that either acknowledges that PCbutts does
that, or doesn't do that, or that the morality or ethics of anyone doing
that is either good or bad or inconsequential in the current context.
The questions I've been asking about the authorship and distribution of
the contentious code can be answered separately and without regard to
exploring or confronting the ethics of the issue. It is not necessary
for me to state that unethical behavior is bad in order for my questions
to be answered. Constantly saying that unethical behavior is bad and
has trust implications is not an answer to those questions. It is a
diversion.
To go off on a slight tangent, to follow your hypothetical book example,
there is a financial aspect in that example that puts the rightful
author at a financial disadvantage above and beyond any loss of
recognition. In this software situation as I understand it, there is no
financial aspect to it.
> > Who is listed as the authors of the software. Are their names
> > listed in the credits or copyright? If so, what are they?
>
> Roguefix... SilentRunners... MVPS Hosts...
Those are not the names of people. They are anonymous pseudonyms.
They have as much meaning to me or the average internet user as the
pseudonym PCbutts.
If they want to be recognized or admired for their work, why do they not
state their actual names?
> Did you miss my post about catching Butts overlooking and
> leaving the last line in the HOSTS file?
Have I asked for evidence that PCbutts incorporates or attributes to
himself the work of others?
I realize that is one aspect to this issue, and on that evidence alone
it would appear that for that file, at one point in time, PCbutts did
incorporate material into his software that he did not create. But I
don't know exactly what message the end-user sees with regard to
attribution when that file is installed, or how that message has changed
over time, or how the PCButts hosts file has changed over time, or how
similar it is now or in the past to the MVPS file.
> This is not necessarily about whether Butts' offerings are
> malware.
But I have asked if his software is malicious. It is no crime to simply
answer no if it's not.
There is nothing wrong with me asking that question, and there is
nothing wrong with you or anyone else giving a straight, correct answer.
> This is all about Butts being a thief. Would you trust a thief?
If he has taken the work of others who wish to remain anonymous, and
possibly improved on the functionality or scope of that work (another
question to which I've gotten no answer) then it is not a matter of
trust. What exactly am I trusting? That the software is competent?
That the software is not malicious? The answer seems to be yes (it's
competent) and no (it's not malicious). So what does the trust pertain
to? What else is left?
I realize that the trust question is the only pragmatic argument you can
put forward to a prospective user of PCbutt's software. Your only other
choice is to berate and criticize them for using it, which I don't think
would go over too well.
Virus Guy
> None of the above involve an authority filtering the information
> available to its subordinates. None of the information is actually
> filtered from the administrator as he or she has the authority
> to remove or circumvent the filter(s). The administrator having
> the authority makes he or she the censor for the users without
> the authority to remove the filtering.
The administrator must take at face value the description of the hosts
file and that it will not interfere with deliberate user browsing to
harmless domains.
In many cases, the "administrator" *is* the end user, which makes it
absurd to think that the end user endevours to censor himself by
installing the hosts file.
Your diversion away from the less-than-honest stated description of the
MVPS hosts file is lame and not rational.
Why can't you simply acknowledge that the MVPS author(s) have an axe to
grind with PCbutts, that they're only human, and as a way to get back at
him they've included his domains in their hosts file even though there
is no end-user protective function in doing so, and they've excercised
poor judgement by not indicating to end users that some of their entries
are there for ideological reasons.
How is any of that not true?
Virus Guy
> It's not censorship if you CHOOSE TO USE IT.
Again, blame the user.
Its censorship if it performs censorship while hiding that information
from the user.
Censorship is bad. It is a negative behavior. People do not desire to
be censored in anything they do, watch, read, or hear.
Protection from malware is good.
End users usually choose good things for their computers and themselves,
not bad things.
Some aspects of the function of the MVPS hosts file is to perform
censorship upon the end user for purely ideological reasons. The end
user does not know that. The description of the MVPS hosts file does
not make that clear - it conceals that information. That is bad,
because censorship is bad.
The authors of the MVPS hosts file and some people here would rather not
admit that the MVPS hosts file contains entries designed to perform
content censorship upon the end user, because they know that censorship
is bad and people resent it when it is performed upon them, especially
without their knowledge.
Are you, Leythos, a contributor to the MVPS hosts file?
Was it your decision to add the PCButts entries into the MVPS hosts
file?
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Do you get the point now? Butts takes other people's copyrighted
>> work, *strips their copyright notices* from the scripts and *adds
>> his own*.
>>
>> Do you think this is fair to the original authors?
>
> I have made no comment so far that either acknowledges that PCbutts
> does that, or doesn't do that, or that the morality or ethics of
> anyone doing that is either good or bad or inconsequential in the
> current context.
I've noticed. Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge that Butts steals
the copyrighted works of other people, and that to you it is apparently
okay to do so?
> To go off on a slight tangent, to follow your hypothetical book
> example, there is a financial aspect in that example that puts the
> rightful author at a financial disadvantage above and beyond any loss
> of recognition. In this software situation as I understand it, there
> is no financial aspect to it.
No, there is no financial aspect. The software Butts steals is free from
the original copyright holders. This isn't about money.
>>> Who is listed as the authors of the software. Are their names listed
>>> in the credits or copyright? If so, what are they?
>>
>> Roguefix... SilentRunners... MVPS Hosts...
>
> Those are not the names of people. They are anonymous pseudonyms.
They are the names of the product software in question.
Roguefix - Stuart - http://www.internetinspiration.co.uk/roguefix.htm
SilentRunners - Andrew Aronoff - http://www.silentrunners.org/
MVPS Hosts file - a real MVP - http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
You also seem to avoid the fact that if you examine the respective
copies of the works that the structural layout of the scripts is
*identical* going so far as to include the use of blocks of asterisks to
simulate a "title page" in the text files - with the only difference
being the name of the copyright holder.
Example:
'Copyright Andrew ARONOFF 07 December 2008,
http://www.silentrunners.org/
'This script is provided without any warranty, either express or implied
'It may not be copied or distributed without permission
Then Butts just changes Andrew's name to his own, and redistributes it
renamed as "What's Live Running Now."
What are the chances that two individuals would come up with identical
layouts in script files?
> They have as much meaning to me or the average internet user as the
> pseudonym PCbutts.
>
> If they want to be recognized or admired for their work, why do they
> not state their actual names?
Why don't you state your actual name? <lol>
What is wrong with using a pseudonym in the copyright of your work?
Case in point: I wrote many database management applications during my
career. None of them ever mentioned my name, but they *all* had the
_Company_Name_ prominently displayed where appropriate.
>> Did you miss my post about catching Butts overlooking and
>> leaving the last line in the HOSTS file?
>
> Have I asked for evidence that PCbutts incorporates or attributes to
> himself the work of others?
You keep avoiding the issue that he does do just that!
>> This is not necessarily about whether Butts' offerings are
>> malware.
>
> But I have asked if his software is malicious. It is no crime to
> simply answer no if it's not.
>
> There is nothing wrong with me asking that question, and there is
> nothing wrong with you or anyone else giving a straight, correct
> answer.
And it, once again, has been answered. The answer is that *likely* there
is no malware in Butts' versions of the stolen copyrighted works, other
than that pissing contest of blocking legitimate web sites with the two
versions of the hosts file, including the sites of the authors whose
works Butts stole.
>> This is all about Butts being a thief. Would you trust a thief?
>
> If he has taken the work of others who wish to remain anonymous, and
> possibly improved on the functionality or scope of that work (another
> question to which I've gotten no answer) then it is not a matter of
> trust. What exactly am I trusting? That the software is competent?
> That the software is not malicious? The answer seems to be yes (it's
> competent) and no (it's not malicious). So what does the trust
> pertain to? What else is left?
>
> I realize that the trust question is the only pragmatic argument you
> can put forward to a prospective user of PCbutt's software. Your
> only other choice is to berate and criticize them for using it, which
> I don't think would go over too well.
I feel that you will never be satisfied with any and all answers given
to you.
I guess you need to admit that you apparently trust a thief.
Leythos
> How is any of that not true?
>
Is the butts site a site containing pirated works from others? YES
Is butts a parasite that should be avoided because of his history of
changing others works? YES
Has butts pirated the real MVP host file? YES
Where are the politics in the above? There are none, the three combined
make it a valid site to block according to the MVP site descriptions.
Leythos
Why would it matter what connection I have when you won't comprehend the
description of the site?
The Real Truth MVP
news:h4psei$a57$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Virus Guy wrote:
>
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>> Do you get the point now? Butts takes other people's copyrighted
>>> work, *strips their copyright notices* from the scripts and *adds
>>> his own*.
That's a lie
>
> No, there is no financial aspect. The software Butts steals is free from
> the original copyright holders. This isn't about money.
Another lie
>
> You also seem to avoid the fact that if you examine the respective
> copies of the works that the structural layout of the scripts is
> *identical* going so far as to include the use of blocks of asterisks to
> simulate a "title page" in the text files - with the only difference
> being the name of the copyright holder.
>
> Example:
> 'Copyright Andrew ARONOFF 07 December 2008,
> http://www.silentrunners.org/
> 'This script is provided without any warranty, either express or implied
> 'It may not be copied or distributed without permission
Another lie. Andrew Aronoff is NOT the author of what he calls silent
runners. He got the file from the same person who gave it to me. I told you
this a few years ago but you chose to ignore it except for the fact that
someone, probably you made a post claiming to be Andrew Aronoff but when he
was challenged about it he ran away.
Leythos
says...
> Another lie. Andrew Aronoff is NOT the author of what he calls silent
> runners. He got the file from the same person who gave it to me. I told you
> this a few years ago but you chose to ignore it except for the fact that
> someone, probably you made a post claiming to be Andrew Aronoff but when he
> was challenged about it he ran away.
>
>
and yet you can't prove what you wrote.
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> Example:
>> 'Copyright Andrew ARONOFF 07 December 2008,
>> http://www.silentrunners.org/
>> 'This script is provided without any warranty, either express or implied
>> 'It may not be copied or distributed without permission
>
> Another lie. Andrew Aronoff is NOT the author of what he calls silent
> runners. He got the file from the same person who gave it to me.
Who would that person be? And why would you add your own copyright
notice to "someone else's work?" And why would you forget to remove
*Andrew's* URL links from "someone else's work?"
Ah. Just like the hosts file I caught you at. You forgot to edit them
out.
> I told you this a few years ago but you chose to ignore it except for
> the fact that someone, probably you made a post claiming to be Andrew
> Aronoff
Not a chance of that, Buttface...
> but when he was challenged about it he ran away.
He called you a thief, told you to stop offering his works, and resumed
not reading Usenet. He did not run away.
FromTheRafters
"Virus Guy" <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in message
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> None of the above involve an authority filtering the information
>> available to its subordinates. None of the information is actually
>> filtered from the administrator as he or she has the authority
>> to remove or circumvent the filter(s). The administrator having
>> the authority makes he or she the censor for the users without
>> the authority to remove the filtering.
>
> The administrator must take at face value the description of the hosts
> file and that it will not interfere with deliberate user browsing to
> harmless domains.
Unfortunately, the description they use contains words that you have
your own personal definitions for and communication is lost to you as a
result.
> In many cases, the "administrator" *is* the end user, which makes it
> absurd to think that the end user endevours to censor himself by
> installing the hosts file.
In that case it is as I earlier stated - you put on sunglasses and then
complain that it is too dark. As administrator you have the authority to
remove the filters - not so for the poor restricted users (who are the
"victims" of *your* censorship). You become the authority that wields
the filter sword - you become the censor.
> Your diversion away from the less-than-honest stated description of
> the
> MVPS hosts file is lame and not rational.
I'm glad you think so ...that probably means it makes perfect sense to
rational people.
> Why can't you simply acknowledge that the MVPS author(s) have an axe
> to
> grind with PCbutts, that they're only human, and as a way to get back
> at
> him they've included his domains in their hosts file even though there
> is no end-user protective function in doing so, and they've excercised
> poor judgement by not indicating to end users that some of their
> entries
> are there for ideological reasons.
> How is any of that not true?
On an even playing field I can see your point. PCButts blocks "good"
sites and the MVPs block it's presumed "good" site. The difference is
historical. PCButts1 operated as a download site for software when it
had not obtained authorization to do so. It also stole the work results
of others labors and modified them to credit itself rather than the
*real* authors. Such activity earns it the label "untrustworthy" in my
book but as for an entry in a hosts file...well....I don't use a hosts
file, but it seems worthy of "ideological" inclusion to me.
Add to that the fact that the "ideological" blocking of "good" sites by
PCButts' (when their history has had no such blemishes) places it's
software firmly in the "malware" family by interfering with a users
ability to remedy an infestation.
FromTheRafters
"Virus Guy" <Vi...@Guy.com> wrote in message
> Leythos wrote:
>
>> It's not censorship if you CHOOSE TO USE IT.
If you choose to use it, you are both the authority and the affected -
it is a form of self-censorship.
If you choose not to tell the whole story for fear of repercussions, it
is self-censorship (of outgoing information). If you decide to stick
your fingers in your ears and scream la la la la la - when someone is
about to say something you don't want to hear it is self-censorship (of
incoming information).
> Again, blame the user.
Not the user, the authority.
> Its censorship if it performs censorship while hiding that information
> from the user.
???
Looks kinda like what we used to call a circular definition.
> Censorship is bad. It is a negative behavior. People do not desire
> to
> be censored in anything they do, watch, read, or hear.
You should add these new definitions to your personal glossary and
publish it so that we can all learn to speak *idiot*.