SpySubtract Vs. SpyDoctor
YankFan
Ian Kenefick
>Which one is better in protecting your system without screwing it up.
SpySubtract was aquired by Trend. SpyDoctor I haven't a clue. Why
don't you try Adaware or Spybot or Microsoft Antispyware.
--
Ian Kenefick
Our website
http://www.ik-cs.com
Useful info
http://harrisonrj.home.comcast.net/SickPC.htm
http://claymania.com/nav-map.html
Ian Kenefick
>Which one is better in protecting your system without screwing it up.
Using 'CRACKS' will screw up your PC. You think the unauthorised
modification of stable and tested binaries provides you with a stable
version of the product on which you can judge performance?
I don't think so.
YankFan
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:48:26 GMT, YankFan <Yan...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Which one is better in protecting your system without screwing it up.
>
>
> SpySubtract was aquired by Trend. SpyDoctor I haven't a clue. Why
> don't you try Adaware or Spybot or Microsoft Antispyware.
>
Ian Kenefick
>Because they suck!
Really... you based the 'suckiness' on detection, user interface etc?
According to the reputable Spywarewarrior
http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-test-results-1.htm
Here is a good example of how MSAS and Ad-aware don't suck. Ad-aware
scores 82 detections out of 134. SpySubtract scores 72 and SW Doctor
scores 74. Giant AS (MSAS) scores 100 out of 134.
YankFan
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:13:34 GMT, YankFan <Yan...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Because they suck!
>
>
> Really... you based the 'suckiness' on detection, user interface etc?
>
> According to the reputable Spywarewarrior
> http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-test-results-1.htm
>
> Here is a good example of how MSAS and Ad-aware don't suck. Ad-aware
> scores 82 detections out of 134. SpySubtract scores 72 and SW Doctor
> scores 74. Giant AS (MSAS) scores 100 out of 134.
>
slows up you're system and adds its own adware for your information.
Common I've been using and building computers now for 15 years now. Get
with the program. Ad-aware is an old program. There is life after it.
There are other out there that perform better. I do experiment with
other things, instead of the same crap all the time.
Ian Kenefick
>I've use that piece of shit for the last 4 years and all it does it
>slows up you're system and adds its own adware for your information.
Thanks a load of bs. There is NO fact at all here.
>Common I've been using and building computers now for 15 years now. Get
>with the program.
And this makes you an expert on software. Get with the program :)
>Ad-aware is an old program. There is life after it.
Ad-aware was one of the first and still is one of the best. There is
life after what?
>There are other out there that perform better. I do experiment with
>other things, instead of the same crap all the time.
Yes others perform better... but you have failed to mention any of
them yet :)
ComPCs
ian_ke...@eircom.net says...
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:30:57 GMT, YankFan <Yan...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >I've use that piece of shit for the last 4 years and all it does it
> >slows up you're system and adds its own adware for your information.
>
> Thanks a load of bs. There is NO fact at all here.
>
> >Common I've been using and building computers now for 15 years now. Get
> >with the program.
>
> And this makes you an expert on software. Get with the program :)
>
> >Ad-aware is an old program. There is life after it.
>
> Ad-aware was one of the first and still is one of the best. There is
> life after what?
>
> >There are other out there that perform better. I do experiment with
> >other things, instead of the same crap all the time.
>
> Yes others perform better... but you have failed to mention any of
> them yet :)
I was wondering the same. If he is so well informed, why is he asking
the question he's asking, and replying with such dumbass answers as he
is?
Ian Kenefick
<newsc...@address.yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>I was wondering the same. If he is so well informed, why is he asking
>the question he's asking, and replying with such dumbass answers as he
>is?
I have no idea ComPC. All I know is he asked a question and we
answered. If he or anyone doesn't like the answer then thats tough
shit!
YankFan
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:48:26 GMT, YankFan <Yan...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Which one is better in protecting your system without screwing it up.
>
>
> Using 'CRACKS' will screw up your PC. You think the unauthorised
> modification of stable and tested binaries provides you with a stable
> version of the product on which you can judge performance?
>
> I don't think so.
>
Xoftspy - Most likely the best out the in the market.
SpyBot - Search & Destroy - Best free one out there
SpywareBlaster - Great for preventing the software in getting in to your
system in the first place.
Nod32 - Most likely the best Virus protection out there in the market.
Please, don't come back telling me that Norton or Microsoft is the best,
because then you'll disappoint me as to your expertise on anything.
There are plenty of product out there that is full of bugs and
meaningless software that doesn't do half the stuff that it claims to
do. Everyone has a gimmick. "Free Trial" if you register and buy the
shit. Everyone is just trying to make a fast buck on developing crap to
the general public, bottom line.
Fitz
***
"Ian Kenefick" <ian_ke...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:cb89l1poloebh6o0k...@4ax.com...
David H. Lipman
| Here is some information for you "so called" experts.
|
| Xoftspy - Most likely the best out the in the market.
| SpyBot - Search & Destroy - Best free one out there
| SpywareBlaster - Great for preventing the software in getting in to your
| system in the first place.
| Nod32 - Most likely the best Virus protection out there in the market.
|
| Please, don't come back telling me that Norton or Microsoft is the best,
| because then you'll disappoint me as to your expertise on anything.
|
| There are plenty of product out there that is full of bugs and
| meaningless software that doesn't do half the stuff that it claims to
| do. Everyone has a gimmick. "Free Trial" if you register and buy the
| shit. Everyone is just trying to make a fast buck on developing crap to
| the general public, bottom line.
Actually, Kaspersky is the best anti virus.
Xoftspy was recently pulled from the Rogue list of anti spyware. It is *far* from the best
!
SpyBot -- No argument there.
SpyWare Blaster -- Good as well.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
YankFan
> From: "YankFan" <Yan...@nospam.net>
>
>
> | Here is some information for you "so called" experts.
> |
> | Xoftspy - Most likely the best out the in the market.
> | SpyBot - Search & Destroy - Best free one out there
> | SpywareBlaster - Great for preventing the software in getting in to your
> | system in the first place.
> | Nod32 - Most likely the best Virus protection out there in the market.
> |
> | Please, don't come back telling me that Norton or Microsoft is the best,
> | because then you'll disappoint me as to your expertise on anything.
> |
> | There are plenty of product out there that is full of bugs and
> | meaningless software that doesn't do half the stuff that it claims to
> | do. Everyone has a gimmick. "Free Trial" if you register and buy the
> | shit. Everyone is just trying to make a fast buck on developing crap to
> | the general public, bottom line.
>
> Actually, Kaspersky is the best anti virus.
>
> Xoftspy was recently pulled from the Rogue list of anti spyware. It is *far* from the best
"I would have to strongly disagree. And so would others in the industry.
XoftSpy detects the widest variety of threats, while NoAdware is the
easiest to use. XoftSpy has a very high satisfaction rate and gets the
nod as our top choice".
http://www.spywareremoversreview.com/
David H. Lipman
Sorry. I wouldn't consider http://www.spywareremoversreview.com/ a "reputable" site. I put
it on the same plane as the Flat Earth Society. Just because it is a web site does not make
thier claims fact.
As for Kaspersky, I have beeen studying computer viruses and infectors for a long time now
and I came to my conclusion of Kaspersky being the best based upon several factors. This
included speed of creating signatures to new infectors, size of their library, power of
scanner and the ability to scan within packaged installers. NOD32 comes second.
You'll notice there is is a perponderance of information on Spyware Warrior
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm vs
http://www.spywareremoversreview.com/ and there is a complete sense credibility from Spyware
Warrior over SpyWare Remover Review.
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm#xos_note
"Note on XoftSpy: XoftSpy was listed on this page because of concerns with false positives
(1, 2, 3, 4), questionable license terms, and the use of aggressive, deceptive advertising
(1, 2), including exploitation of the name "spybot" by affiliates. Earlier versions of
XoftSpy were also Ad-aware knockoffs. (There was clone of XoftSpy named SpyBurn, but that
application is no longer available.)
Over the past few months, XoftSpy has taken aggressive steps to reign in its affiliates (who
were primarily responsible for the unsavory advertising), revised its license text, and
released a new version of XoftSpy (version 4.0) that addresses our concerns with false
positves. Given these changes we can no longer regard XoftSpy as "rogue/suspect"
anti-spyware."
David H. Lipman
As I look over http://www.spywarewarrior.com/ and http://www.spywareremoversreview.com/ I
have no choice but to consider the latter a paid and biased site to promote bad software.
All of Spyware Remover Reviewers software are Rogues !
In fact in the short list not one reputable anti adware/anti spyware application is listed.
It is a biased, tainted, site and can't be trusted.
Ian Kenefick
>In article <r6i5f.7006$Lb1.3907@trndny03>, DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net
>says...
>> As for Kaspersky, I have beeen studying computer viruses and infectors for a long time now
>> and I came to my conclusion of Kaspersky being the best based upon several factors. This
>> included speed of creating signatures to new infectors, size of their library, power of
>> scanner and the ability to scan within packaged installers.
>
>The onlyh problem with Kap is that it can't get DOD certification due to
>where it's coded. I can't run it on any of our systems when we do
>government work.
Because it's Russian! Very interesting. I'm going to do some
investigative work on this. Back soon!
--
Ian Kenefick
[1]http://www.ik-cs.com
[2]http://www.windowsdefender.com
[3]http://www.claymania.com/nav-map.html
Ian Kenefick
>In article <r6i5f.7006$Lb1.3907@trndny03>, DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net
>says...
>> As for Kaspersky, I have beeen studying computer viruses and infectors for a long time now
>> and I came to my conclusion of Kaspersky being the best based upon several factors. This
>> included speed of creating signatures to new infectors, size of their library, power of
>> scanner and the ability to scan within packaged installers.
>
>The onlyh problem with Kap is that it can't get DOD certification due to
>where it's coded. I can't run it on any of our systems when we do
>government work.
<Ian>
Hello Eugene,
Hope all is well. I have read some interesting stuff in Usenet.
Maybe someone in KLAB can add some fact to this. I refer to the
inability of some DOD (Department of defense) to get certification
(or validation) to run Russian coded security software
<end Ian>
<Eugene Kaspersky>
Hello Ian,
That's a good news for me - the fact that the only problem with our
product is DOD sertification :)
Seriously, we are still in the soft-cold war period, and USA
government/military doesn't trust Russian technologies/products, and
vise versa - Russian govmnt doesn't trust USA... I think that will be
changed sooner of later. Can you imagine that West European govmnt
could
use Russian software 10 years ago? Definitely not. Now it's changed -
and we have even military customers in West Europe.
What to do at the moment? Well, we have technological parthners which
develop their own software based on our anti-virus databases and
updates. In this case the software is developed in USA or EU, and I
think that should be not a problem for DOD to use that anti-virus
software.
Regards,
Eugene
<End Eugene Kaspersky>
Ian Kenefick
>It was nice to see the post from our friend from afar
He (EK) has always been very receptive to my emails relating to
subjects of a technical or political nature.
>, but, it's not
>going to change anytime soon - can you imagine the DOD using Akbar AV
>software, how about Chinese based AV software, etc....
ha ha, priceless. 'WMD' (worms of mass destruction).
>Anything that could be used to disable a PC, could be used to leak info
>from a PC, etc... It's got to pass the sniff test before it can be used
>by the DOD, and that means the entire company has to be clean (security
>wise) or it's not going to get a pass from the DOD or the NSA.
You mean to say Kaspersky Lab doesn't qualify? You would think such a
reputable company would. I find them certainly more compotent than the
likes of Symantec....although on the corporate level I cannot comment.
rotfl: Akbar AV...
ar@x
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:r6i5f.7006$Lb1.3907@trndny03...
> From: "YankFan" <Yan...@nospam.net>
>
> | David H. Lipman wrote:
>>> From: "YankFan" <Yan...@nospam.net>
>>>
> |>> Here is some information for you "so called" experts.
> |>>
> |>> Xoftspy - Most likely the best out the in the market.
> |>> SpyBot - Search & Destroy - Best free one out there
> |>> SpywareBlaster - Great for preventing the software in getting in to
> your
> |>> system in the first place.
> |>> Nod32 - Most likely the best Virus protection out there in the market.
> |>>
> |>> Please, don't come back telling me that Norton or Microsoft is the
> best,
> |>> because then you'll disappoint me as to your expertise on anything.
> |>>
> |>> There are plenty of product out there that is full of bugs and
> |>> meaningless software that doesn't do half the stuff that it claims to
> |>> do. Everyone has a gimmick. "Free Trial" if you register and buy the
> |>> shit. Everyone is just trying to make a fast buck on developing crap
> to
> |>> the general public, bottom line.
>>>
>>> Actually, Kaspersky is the best anti virus.
> | No, one of the worse in the industry. While Nod32 is top of the line.
Well, I'm with David (and av-comparatives) here.... the description of
'Best'
comes closer to Kasperskys perfomance figures below, and the description
'worst'
comes close to those held by someone with deep-seated psychological
problems.
Over to you YankFan ;-)
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2005_08.php
ar@x
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:Isi5f.135364$lI5....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <r6i5f.7006$Lb1.3907@trndny03>, DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net
> says...
>> for a long time now
>> and I came to my conclusion of Kaspersky being the best based upon
>> several factors. This
>> included speed of creating signatures to new infectors, size of their
>> library, power of
>> scanner and the ability to scan within packaged installers.
>
> where it's coded. I can't run it on any of our systems when we do
> government work.
>
With all due respect, that is not Kaspersky's problem - that is
*your* problem - you should complain to the jackasses
who make the rules at the DoD.
Ian Kenefick
>With all due respect, that is not Kaspersky's problem - that is
>*your* problem - you should complain to the jackasses
>who make the rules at the DoD.
Ah yes... but you can see where he (Lethos) is coming from. The
underlying political issues overshadow what is a reputable security
vendor. Thats life. I'm sure Kaspersky isn't losing sleep over it.
Ian Kenefick
>Yep, no one is intended to lose any sleep over it. It's a simple fact
>that one has to be secure and without actually taking the time to read
>the code line by line, without processing every update, you don't really
>know what is being installed on your computers - which is a "security"
>issue and has nothing to do with Politics.
The paranoia is induced by political differences. The rest is just a
byproduct.
Ian Kenefick
> if you understood how simple it would be to
>gain information via a AV product, if you cared about any of those, you
>might not care about politics and it would not be paranoia.
Ah, your mistake. You underestimate my understanding. AV tools already
send data to AV vendor through OPT-in services. Example: Bitdefender,
ESET (nod32). Making this invisible to the end user or evensysadmin is
trivial.
pcbutts1
there too. Hmmm could that mean that you are an idiot. Yes it does.
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:V5p5f.59839$Hs.3...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <fg6cl1pl30ivd4p9e...@4ax.com>,
> ian_ke...@eircom.net says...
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:00:26 GMT, Leythos <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>> >It was nice to see the post from our friend from afar
>>
>> He (EK) has always been very receptive to my emails relating to
>> subjects of a technical or political nature.
>
> I personally don't have any issues with most developers, but, when it
> comes to security I would rather use something where I know the company
> is cleared at the DOD/NSA level, where I know that my AV software is not
> going to spy on my system when some magic update is done the next time
> the US does something. Yea, most likely won't happen, but, when you
> write that many lines of code and have an update that can run
> applications on your machine at the System level, why take a chance.
>
>> >, but, it's not
>> >going to change anytime soon - can you imagine the DOD using Akbar AV
>> >software, how about Chinese based AV software, etc....
>>
>> ha ha, priceless. 'WMD' (worms of mass destruction).
>>
>> >Anything that could be used to disable a PC, could be used to leak info
>> >from a PC, etc... It's got to pass the sniff test before it can be used
>> >by the DOD, and that means the entire company has to be clean (security
>> >wise) or it's not going to get a pass from the DOD or the NSA.
>>
>> You mean to say Kaspersky Lab doesn't qualify? You would think such a
>> reputable company would. I find them certainly more compotent than the
>> likes of Symantec....although on the corporate level I cannot comment.
>
> Yep, sorry to say, but software designed by former and current countries
> we've been at war against won't qualify as safe on DOD machines, and I
> don't use it either. Sure, it could be just being paranoid, but with a
> couple quality AV products out that are not in that situation we don't
> have to worry about it.
>
>> rotfl: Akbar AV...
>
> Yea, I can see it now, new AV software on the market, they're
> advertising it using the slogan "save your pc's butts 1 time"..... Oh,
> and don't forget, you can get the crack to unlock the full set of
> features at the vendors site too :)
>
>
>
> --
>
> spam9...@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
pcbutts1
"Leythos" <vo...@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:Grs5f.81986$tD4....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> In article <KNGdnft_Zp1...@giganews.com>, pcbu...@seedsv.com
> says...
>> Thanks for visiting. Hey I'm still here posting and my website is still
>> there too. Hmmm could that mean that you are an idiot. Yes it does.
>
> No, like comprehension, you don't have an understanding of ethics, but
> there are a number of vendors that dispute your claims about having
> permission to host their files, and you still have a reputation for
> being an immature, unethical, hack, kid.
shplink
SNIP the good stuff
>
Just a side note guys, this is one of the most interesting posts/arguments
I've waded through in a while. Thank you both for your opinions and
expertise.
--
the alt.privacy.spyware FAQ:
http://shplink.com/misc/FAQ.htm
shplink
> In article <MOednZRLZdb...@bresnan.com>,
> shp...@removeme.shplink.com says...
>> Leythos was nice enough to say:
>>
>> SNIP the good stuff
>> >
>> Just a side note guys, this is one of the most interesting
>> posts/arguments I've waded through in a while. Thank you both for your
>> opinions and expertise.
>
> I don't think there was any argument. We were discussing the security
> implications of using former security threat countries that could again
> be a threat some day to build the applications that help secure your
> machines during peace times.
>
> I like Kap, but, as we often do work for the US Government we can't use
> software that may violate their security standards on machines that we
> may take into the facilities. Kap's not the only vendor that can't be
> brought into areas.
>
I used the term "argument" in its classic, dialectic sense. Arguments are
wonderful. Shout matches and "you're an idiot" exchanges are a different
story!
;-)
I really feel that this is the best service Usenet offers:, Folks argue (in
the classic sense) -opinions and facts are exchanged, bystanders learn and
can ultimately make up their own minds.
ComPCs
vo...@nowhere.lan says...
> If you can put up with the Trolls, Malcontents, idiots, and the
> downright dangerous types, it make a great place to come to learn about
> specific subjects.
I wondered when you'd get round to PCbutts...
pcbutts1
doing something wrong yet after 6 years I still do it. It boggles his mind
why the "Vendors" don't stop me.
"ComPCs" <newsc...@address.yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dc09389f...@news.individual.net...
David H. Lipman
| In article <r6i5f.7006$Lb1.3907@trndny03>, DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net
| says...
>> As for Kaspersky, I have beeen studying computer viruses and infectors for a long time
>> now and I came to my conclusion of Kaspersky being the best based upon several factors.
>> This included speed of creating signatures to new infectors, size of their library, power
>> of scanner and the ability to scan within packaged installers.
|
| The onlyh problem with Kap is that it can't get DOD certification due to
| where it's coded. I can't run it on any of our systems when we do
| government work.
|
| --
|
| spam9...@rrohio.com
| remove 999 in order to email me
That's alright. The DoD has a complete system wide license, through DISA, for; Trend
Micro, Symantec and McAfee. It covers all the services and the home computers of DoD
civiliians (except contractors) and active duty personnel.
I can't fathom Kaspersky *ever* being on the SIPRnet !
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Ian Kenefick
>Over to you YankFan ;-)
Ask the expert? :)
us...@host.invalid
>Ian Kenefick wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:13:34 GMT, YankFan <Yan...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Because they suck!
>>
>>
>> Really... you based the 'suckiness' on detection, user interface etc?
>>
>> According to the reputable Spywarewarrior
>> http://spywarewarrior.com/asw-test-results-1.htm
>>
>> Here is a good example of how MSAS and Ad-aware don't suck. Ad-aware
>> scores 82 detections out of 134. SpySubtract scores 72 and SW Doctor
>> scores 74. Giant AS (MSAS) scores 100 out of 134.
>>
>I've use that piece of shit for the last 4 years and all it does it
>slows up you're system and adds its own adware
And one would assume that you have evidence to support this allegation
right?
I doubt that you would even prove it.
> for your information. Common I've been using and building computers now for 15 years now.
ROFLMAO.
Sure, and I was designing space shuttles at NASA if you were building
computers for the lat 15 years.
>Get with the program.
I suggest you enroll in anger management courses.
>Ad-aware is an old program. There is life after it.
It was the first in this, but doesn't mean that it was not updated.
>There are other out there that perform better. I do experiment with
>other things, instead of the same crap all the time.
If you know it all how come you are asking for our expert opinion?
Funny thing that once you get an opinion you ramble about it.
us...@host.invalid
>Ian Kenefick wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:48:26 GMT, YankFan <Yan...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Which one is better in protecting your system without screwing it up.
>>
>>
>> Using 'CRACKS' will screw up your PC. You think the unauthorised
>> modification of stable and tested binaries provides you with a stable
>> version of the product on which you can judge performance?
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>Here is some information for you "so called" experts.
>
If you don't like the information and answers you read here, feel free
to take your rants elsewhere.
>Xoftspy - Most likely the best out the in the market.
>SpyBot - Search & Destroy - Best free one out there
>SpywareBlaster - Great for preventing the software in getting in to your
>system in the first place.
>Nod32 - Most likely the best Virus protection out there in the market.
According to whom?
You?
Sorry, you disqualified yourself by your posts.
Definition of "best" varies depending on usage and specific features.
>Please, don't come back telling me that Norton or Microsoft is the best,
>because then you'll disappoint me as to your expertise on anything.
Like anyone cares about you being disappointed.
>There are plenty of product out there that is full of bugs and
>meaningless software that doesn't do half the stuff that it claims to
>do. Everyone has a gimmick. "Free Trial" if you register and buy the
>shit. Everyone is just trying to make a fast buck on developing crap to
>the general public, bottom line.
No kidding.
And what has stating the obvious got to do with opinions of spyware
software quality/performance?
If you don't like the opinions you read here, feel free to try them
yourself, bottom line.
What's in a Name?
<Odi5f.5993$hx.5014@trndny08> after much thought,came up with this
jewel:
> Addendum:
>
> As I look over http://www.spywarewarrior.com/ and
> http://www.spywareremoversreview.com/ I have no choice but to
> consider the latter a paid and biased site to promote bad software.
> All of Spyware Remover Reviewers software are Rogues !
>
> In fact in the short list not one reputable anti adware/anti spyware
> application is listed. It is a biased, tainted, site and can't be
> trusted.
David-
YankFan likes to rip off who it can.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cracks/browse_thread/thread/1948057e8
d081bfb/f9f3e5e187d08ecf?lnk=st&q=Yan...@nospam.net&rnum=11&hl=en#f9f3e
5e187d08ecf
PC buttfucker's brother no doubt.
-max
--
Playing Nice on Usenet:
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/unice.htm#xpost
My Pages: http://home.neo.rr.com/manna4u/
Change nomail.afraid.org to yahoo.com to reply.
Registered Linux User #393236
pcbutts1
"What's in a Name?" <maxp...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:xn0e8q9e...@news.readfreenews.net...
What's in a Name?
<tpGdnVBbnNj...@giganews.com> after much thought,came up with
this jewel:
> Fuck you max.
>
You wouldn't like it.
point.
Ian Kenefick
>I suggest you enroll in anger management courses.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Fitz
--
***
NEVER download files from anywhere unless it is from the website of the
developer, manufacturer or some entity that you trust. They ALWAYS have the
most up to date files that haven't been tampered with by some third party
who is "hosting" (read Leeching) those files without permission.
***
"pcbutts1" <pcbu...@seedsv.com> wrote in message
news:tpGdnVBbnNj...@giganews.com...