Alternative browsers pose challenge for cybersleuths
Roy Culley
The advent of Firefox and other alternatives to Internet Explorer
means cybercops have to learn new tricks for their investigations.
Internet Explorer hides nothing from police and other `
investigators who examine PCs to discover which sites the user has
visited. They know the location of the IE browser cache, cookie
files and history, and they know how to read those files. Also,
popular forensics tools can help out.
I can just hear it now, Gates pleading with Windows users to be
partiotic and not use alternative browsers in the interest of homeland
security. :-)
But that story changes when it comes to alternative Web browsers
such as Firefox and Opera. These programs use different
structures, files and naming conventions for the data that
investigators are after. And files are in a different location on
the hard drive, which can cause trouble for examiners. Furthermore,
forensics software may not support the Web browsers.
--
Rich Bell in thread: Things I couldn't do if I switched to Linux
Message-ID: <tB7Oe.182$yo7...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
I am connected to the Net using a Linksys WRT54G router. I don't
get hacked.
billwg
"Roy Culley" <r...@nodomain.none> wrote in message
news:bp7ku2-...@dog.did.it...
> Furthermore,
> forensics software may not support the Web browsers.
>
Is that a source of comfort for you, roy?
High Plains Thumper
news:bp7ku2-...@dog.did.it:
> http://news.com.com/2100-7348-5845409.html?tag=tb
>
> The advent of Firefox and other alternatives to
> Internet Explorer means cybercops have to learn new
> tricks for their investigations.
>
> Internet Explorer hides nothing from police and other `
> investigators who examine PCs to discover which sites
> the user has visited. They know the location of the IE
> browser cache, cookie files and history, and they know
> how to read those files. Also, popular forensics tools
> can help out.
>
> I can just hear it now, Gates pleading with Windows users
> to be partiotic and not use alternative browsers in the
> interest of homeland security. :-)
He doesn't have to, there is enough websites using M$ specific
html and Java that you must use their browser to view it
properly.
--
HPT
Roy Culley
<Xns96C4AF...@216.168.3.44>,
That must explain why IE usage is dropping, firefox is increasing.
As for java please give examples of sites using java that won't work
under alternative brosers? My bank switched to java several years ago
for the simple reason that non-windows customers could use their
online banking.
Rick
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:36:57 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>>
>> That must explain why IE usage is dropping, firefox is increasing.
>
> And it should because FF is a better browser than IE but there are growing
> pains.
>> As for java please give examples of sites using java that won't work
>> under alternative brosers? My bank switched to java several years ago
>> for the simple reason that non-windows customers could use their online
>> banking.
>
> Don't know if it's java, but Verizon is terrible with FF.
> You can't pay your bill with anything other than IE.
Gee.. then how have I been paying my Verizon bill?
> Note, this works up until you hit submit which is when it fails so it
> can only be verified by people with Verizon accounts, like me. However
> there are reams of pages on the net complaining about it.
Gee.. then how have I been paying my Verizon bill?
--
Rick
steve
> begin risky.vbs
> <Xns96C4AF...@216.168.3.44>,
> High Plains Thumper <h...@highplainsthumper.com> writes:
>> r...@nodomain.none (Roy Culley) wrote in news:bp7ku2-...@dog.did.it:
>>
>>> http://news.com.com/2100-7348-5845409.html?tag=tb
>>>
>>> The advent of Firefox and other alternatives to Internet Explorer
>>> means cybercops have to learn new tricks for their investigations.
>>>
>>> Internet Explorer hides nothing from police and other `
>>> investigators who examine PCs to discover which sites the user has
>>> visited. They know the location of the IE browser cache, cookie
>>> files and history, and they know how to read those files. Also,
>>> popular forensics tools can help out.
>>>
>>> I can just hear it now, Gates pleading with Windows users to be
>>> partiotic and not use alternative browsers in the interest of homeland
>>> security. :-)
>>
>> He doesn't have to, there is enough websites using M$ specific html and
>> Java that you must use their browser to view it properly.
>
> That must explain why IE usage is dropping, firefox is increasing.
>
> As for java please give examples of sites using java that won't work under
> alternative brosers? My bank switched to java several years ago for the
> simple reason that non-windows customers could use their online banking.
Lotus notes web interface use to require the MS JVM, I am sure there are
sites out there that do the same.
TheLetterK
> http://news.com.com/2100-7348-5845409.html?tag=tb
>
> The advent of Firefox and other alternatives to Internet Explorer
> means cybercops have to learn new tricks for their investigations.
>
> Internet Explorer hides nothing from police and other `
> investigators who examine PCs to discover which sites the user has
> visited. They know the location of the IE browser cache, cookie
> files and history, and they know how to read those files. Also,
> popular forensics tools can help out.
>
> I can just hear it now, Gates pleading with Windows users to be
> partiotic and not use alternative browsers in the interest of homeland
> security. :-)
>
> But that story changes when it comes to alternative Web browsers
> such as Firefox and Opera. These programs use different
> structures, files and naming conventions for the data that
> investigators are after. And files are in a different location on
> the hard drive, which can cause trouble for examiners. Furthermore,
> forensics software may not support the Web browsers.
>
PortableFirefox, will run off keydrives which can be easily destroyed
beyond readability.
TheLetterK
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:36:57 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>
>
>
> pains.
>
>>under alternative brosers? My bank switched to java several years ago
>>for the simple reason that non-windows customers could use their online
>>banking.
>
>
> You can't pay your bill with anything other than IE.
Sounds like ActiveX.
chrisv
>> Java that you must use their browser to view it properly.
>
> That must explain why IE usage is dropping, firefox is increasing.
>
> As for java please give examples of sites using java that won't work
> under alternative brosers? My bank switched to java several years ago
> for the simple reason that non-windows customers could use their online
> banking.
Web-sites that don't support standards (read: Firefox) are almost
non-existant, in my experience. About a year back, carsoup.com wasn't
working, and I complained, and they responded "IE or Netscape is all we
support", so I said "catcha later, losers, I'll take my business
elsewhere."
I tried it again the other day, works fine. 8)
Sinister Midget
Stop that! Flathead googled for several minutes before making that one
up. What are you trying to do, wear s/h/it out?
--
A Microsoft Certified System Engineer is to information technology
as a McDonalds Certified Food Specialist is to the culinary arts.
Tim Smith
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Web-sites that don't support standards (read: Firefox) are almost
> non-existant, in my experience. About a year back, carsoup.com wasn't
Yeah, that's what I've seen, too. A couple years or so ago, IE's
javascript support was significantly better than that of the other
browsers, so I'd occasionally run into sites that were doing very
complicated Javascript stuff that would only work in IE (and maybe
Opera...I never tried that), but Konqueror, Safari, and the
Mozilla-based browser have all caught up.
Only very specialized sites nowadays have any excuse for being IE-only
(e.g., internal corporate sites that are basically using IE as a
framework for an application).
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
> > Note, this works up until you hit submit which is when it fails so it
> > can only be verified by people with Verizon accounts, like me. However
> > there are reams of pages on the net complaining about it.
>
> Gee.. then how have I been paying my Verizon bill?
Flatfish is right: a check with Google finds a lot of Firefox users
reporting exactly the same problem he is: it works up until the point
where you actually pay, and then fails (in some cases silently, so you
think you've paid).
The problem possibly has something to do with pop-up blocking, so might
depend on the exact Firefox version one is using. That could explain
why you say it works but many other people say it doesn't.
--
--Tim Smith
Rick
> In article <pan.2005.09.02....@nomail.com>,
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
>> > Note, this works up until you hit submit which is when it fails so it
>> > can only be verified by people with Verizon accounts, like me. However
>> > there are reams of pages on the net complaining about it.
>>
>> Gee.. then how have I been paying my Verizon bill?
>
> Flatfish is right: a check with Google finds a lot of Firefox users
> reporting exactly the same problem he is: it works up until the point
> where you actually pay, and then fails (in some cases silently, so you
> think you've paid).
I read your message, paid my Verizon bill and sent this reply.
>
> The problem possibly has something to do with pop-up blocking, so might
> depend on the exact Firefox version one is using. That could explain
> why you say it works but many other people say it doesn't.
I have popup blocking on, and am using FireFox 1.06.
Still, the Flat-it's --claim-- is that Verizon's bill pay pages don't work
with Firefox. While there ARE people that may have problems or have had
problems ( I am one of the latter) ForeFox DOES work with Verizon's
billpay web pages.
--
Rick
Linønut
>>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:36:57 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>>>> As for java please give examples of sites using java that won't work
>>>> under alternative brosers? My bank switched to java several years ago
>>>> for the simple reason that non-windows customers could use their online
>>>> banking.
>>>
>>> Don't know if it's java, but Verizon is terrible with FF.
>>> You can't pay your bill with anything other than IE.
>>
>> Gee.. then how have I been paying my Verizon bill?
>
> Stop that! Flathead googled for several minutes before making that one
> up. What are you trying to do, wear s/h/it out?
It's funny how much stuff won't work if you disable JavaScript.
It's also funny how GnuPress can do secure transactions with
bog-standard HTML.
--
Linux - A most satisfying eXPerience
Linønut
> In article <pan.2005.09.02....@nomail.com>,
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> wrote:
>> > Note, this works up until you hit submit which is when it fails so it
>> > can only be verified by people with Verizon accounts, like me. However
>> > there are reams of pages on the net complaining about it.
>>
>> Gee.. then how have I been paying my Verizon bill?
>
> The problem possibly has something to do with pop-up blocking, so might
> depend on the exact Firefox version one is using. That could explain
> why you say it works but many other people say it doesn't.
Firefox does let you know when it blocks a popup.
(Yet there are some popups that pop up anyway, even with blocking.)
Bob Hauck
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Only very specialized sites nowadays have any excuse for being IE-only
> (e.g., internal corporate sites that are basically using IE as a
> framework for an application).
And even they are usually being foolish in when they do that.
I have here a corporate training CD. The material is browser-based. It
presents a series of video clips and then there's a quiz. During
startup there is some javascript that checks for specific versions of
IE, WMP, and that you are indeed running on Win32.
Macs not allowed, even though they have the requisite stuff. No older
versions of Windows either AFAICT. It also has a stupid bug that makes
it impossible to run the thing from a directory on your hard drive,
which is kinda annoying for those of us who travel. Gotta drag another
CD along.
The thing is, if you bypass that stuff, the thing actually works fine in
Firefox on Linux, provided you have the appropriate plug-ins. The
videos play, the flash content works, etc.
So basically somebody wrote code to break this thing on setups that
didn't look like the authors, but if they had simply done nothing it
would have been fine. I have not quite figured out how that is supposed
to help us get our jobs done. I think it has more to do with being lazy
and not wanting to do any real QA.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
billwg
"Bob Hauck" <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrndhggvu.j...@bigbird.haucks.org...
>
> So basically somebody wrote code to break this thing on setups that
> didn't look like the authors, but if they had simply done nothing it
> would have been fine. I have not quite figured out how that is
> supposed
> to help us get our jobs done. I think it has more to do with being
> lazy
> and not wanting to do any real QA.
>
It likely has more to do with the engineering and product marketing
involved, Bob. The product was presumably designed to work in a
specific way for a specific target market. It is true that browsers
vary somewhat and there seems to be no real universal ground that you
can exploit to guarantee that everything will work OK. It is not so
farfetched to make a decision that restricts your product's range to
specific versions of operating system and browsers. The supplier
warrants that it will work within that range of environment and
presumably tests his product to make sure of that. To enforce the
decision, it is wise to test for the environment and simply refuse to
operate or else decommit from any guarantee of performance. It is
probably best to not work at all, which removes any possible expectation
from the user's mind.
It takes more work to make things work across a wider range of
environment and it is fair to try to get a higher price for doing so.
Else, if there is little economic activity in fringe environments, it is
smart to simply not participate at all and so provide a more cost
effective solution in a narrower range.
chrisv
>"Bob Hauck" <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>news:slrndhggvu.j...@bigbird.haucks.org...
>>
>> So basically somebody wrote code to break this thing on setups that
>> didn't look like the authors, but if they had simply done nothing it
>> would have been fine. I have not quite figured out how that is
>> supposed
>> to help us get our jobs done. I think it has more to do with being
>> lazy
>> and not wanting to do any real QA.
>>
>
>It likely has more to do with the engineering and product marketing
>involved, Bob. The product was presumably designed to work in a
>specific way for a specific target market. It is true that browsers
>vary somewhat and there seems to be no real universal ground that you
>can exploit to guarantee that everything will work OK.
Bullshit. Just stick to the standards.
Obviously, it's easier (and thus saves money) to make a Web site that
is verified to work with only one version of one brand of browser.
The other side of that coin, however, is that this scenerio leads to
vendor lock-in and the increased costs associated with it (an
alternative vendor is prevented from out-bidding the installed
vendor).
The world overall is better-off, when there are alternatives and
healthy competition.
Bob Hauck
>
> "Bob Hauck" <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndhggvu.j...@bigbird.haucks.org...
>>
>> So basically somebody wrote code to break this thing on setups that
>> didn't look like the authors, but if they had simply done nothing it
>> would have been fine. I have not quite figured out how that is
>> supposed to help us get our jobs done. I think it has more to do
>> with being lazy and not wanting to do any real QA.
>>
>
> It likely has more to do with the engineering and product marketing
> involved, Bob.
Marketing? Maybe. No way is it related to engineering, since IT DOES
IN FACT WORK on what you refer to as "fringe" platforms.
What you're really doing is making excuses for why vendors make crappy
products when for almost no additional effort they could have a non
crappy product. At then end of the day a crappy product is still crappy
even if you have an excuse.
> It takes more work to make things work across a wider range of
> environment and it is fair to try to get a higher price for doing so.
I disagree in this case. It is playing some video and filling in some
forms. Quite basic stuff really, not rocket science.
> Else, if there is little economic activity in fringe environments, it
> is smart to simply not participate at all and so provide a more cost
> effective solution in a narrower range.
Macs are a "fringe environment"? Older versions of Windows? The thing
is, in a company with 1200 people, there are going to be some that are
not fully upgraded to the latest thing, or that have to use a different
platform for whatever reason (usually to run specific software). It
seems to me that it is worth some token effort to support those.
This particular CD takes many hours to go through, so it isn't as if you
can just borrow somebody else's computer for a minute. This is a bad
product, no matter how you try to spin it.
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:irvgh118mgqimhm3r...@4ax.com...
>
> The world overall is better-off, when there are alternatives and
> healthy competition.
>
cost effective solution regardless of how may non-optimum choices exist
or may have existed.
Ray Ingles
> The world is best off only when everyone is using the most efficiently
> cost effective solution regardless of how may non-optimum choices exist
> or may have existed.
Why, Bill, you never told us you were a Stalinist!
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
[Senator Tom Delay is soliciting donations for a "children's charity"
as a cover for raising money for the GOP. It seems that] part of the
money would go to pay for late-night convention parties, a luxury
suite during President Bush's speech at Madison Square Garden and
yacht cruises. - New York Times, November 14th, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/politics/14DELA.html
billwg
"Bob Hauck" <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> Marketing? Maybe. No way is it related to engineering, since IT DOES
> IN FACT WORK on what you refer to as "fringe" platforms.
>
works where it is warranted to work. Perhaps it works elsewhere, but
there is no interest in that if it is designed to work with some other
set of conditions.
> What you're really doing is making excuses for why vendors make crappy
> products when for almost no additional effort they could have a non
> crappy product. At then end of the day a crappy product is still
> crappy
> even if you have an excuse.
>
If you were the product manager and that were the truth, then you would
be correct. "Almost no additional effort" is your guess as to the cost
of adapting the product to your exact needs, but you are doubtless
predjudiced. Maybe your vendor is a fool, and maybe your vendor has
made a different assessment, but if the product doesn't meet your needs,
you are dealing with the wrong supplier. Apparently someone else
decided that the product met the needs of your company. You need to
convince that decision maker to switch your company's business to some
other supplier.
The existing supplier may then decide that its product is insufficient
for the market or may just go on with their target business and not shed
any tears for the loss of anybody that they felt they could not properly
address. A company that consistently makes the wrong product decisions
will go out of business due to lack of customers. One that consistently
meets its customers' needs will last.
chrisv
The most cost-effective solution can rarely be achieved without
competition, stupid. Once you're locked-in to one vendor's product,
they can, and will, overcharge you.
GreyCloud
Yeup. Use Linux.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@dmc22317.local> wrote in message
news:slrndhh8kh....@dmc22317.local...
> In article <7D%Re.608$xl6...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:
>> The world is best off only when everyone is using the most
>> efficiently
>> cost effective solution regardless of how may non-optimum choices
>> exist
>> or may have existed.
>
> Why, Bill, you never told us you were a Stalinist!
>
Republican?
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> The most cost-effective solution can rarely be achieved without
> competition, stupid. Once you're locked-in to one vendor's product,
> they can, and will, overcharge you.
>
the leader doesn't get too smug? Or do you want the other guy to use
the stuff? How exactly does this work?
billwg
"GreyCloud" <cum...@mist.com> wrote in message
news:4318C6BD...@mist.com...
Of course you have to show that it is better than the rest and that is
quite a feat.
chrisv
>"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The most cost-effective solution can rarely be achieved without
>> competition, stupid. Once you're locked-in to one vendor's product,
>> they can, and will, overcharge you.
>>
>So your strategy is to always get something that isn't the best so that
>the leader doesn't get too smug?
Dumbsh*t. Please show where I made any concession that the entrenched
vendor is "the best". Indeed, it quite often is NOT.
>Or do you want the other guy to use the stuff? How exactly does this work?
Aren't you embarrassed to make such an ass of yourself all the time?
Is the attention really worth it?
Bob Hauck
>
> "Bob Hauck" <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndhgvsj.k...@bigbird.haucks.org...
>>
>> Marketing? Maybe. No way is it related to engineering, since IT DOES
>> IN FACT WORK on what you refer to as "fringe" platforms.
>>
> That may be pure serendippity, Bob.
I'm sure it is. But then, what it actually does is simple enough that
such serendipty should be rather likely to occur. Most of it is just
html forms with some links to videos.
I understand what the vendor warrants and doesn't warrant. My complaint
is that what he warrants is far too narrow for the real situation on the
ground.
>> At then end of the day a crappy product is still crappy even if you
>> have an excuse.
>>
> If you were the product manager and that were the truth, then you
> would be correct.
Actually, the important judgements are made by the customer and the end
user (who may not be the same). Most of us don't worship marketing the
way you do Bill.
> "Almost no additional effort" is your guess as to the cost of adapting
> the product to your exact needs, but you are doubtless predjudiced.
By merely deleting some Javascript it works to my exact needs. I know
exactly how much work it would take, at least engineering-wise.
As for support, if us "fringe users" are such a small group then it
should not be much of a burden. Just hire a guy to say "we feeel your
pain", which is all support generally does anyhow.
I'm sure the QA would kill them though, since they'd need to have some.
> Maybe your vendor is a fool, and maybe your vendor has made a
> different assessment, but if the product doesn't meet your needs, you
> are dealing with the wrong supplier.
Not me, corporate HR are the ones dealing with the wrong supplier. Or
maybe they are the supplier, I don't know. If the latter, then I guess
there is not much hope for change.
> Apparently someone else decided that the product met the needs of your
> company. You need to convince that decision maker to switch your
> company's business to some other supplier.
Indeed, and I have made my opinion known on that score. I am not the
only one with critcisms.
billwg
"Bob Hauck" <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> I understand what the vendor warrants and doesn't warrant. My
> complaint
> is that what he warrants is far too narrow for the real situation on
> the
> ground.
>
different target.
>
> Actually, the important judgements are made by the customer and the
> end
> user (who may not be the same). Most of us don't worship marketing
> the
> way you do Bill.
>
I don't know how that follows from what I said, Bob, but the goal in
marketing is to not give the consumer a choice. The consumer is
expected to immediately see that your product is the only reasonable
selection. Ideally, of course. There is always some education
required.
>
>> "Almost no additional effort" is your guess as to the cost of
>> adapting
>> the product to your exact needs, but you are doubtless predjudiced.
>
> By merely deleting some Javascript it works to my exact needs. I know
> exactly how much work it would take, at least engineering-wise.
>
That makes it work with your browser in the range of use that you
anticipate. Does it work in all respects with your browser?
> As for support, if us "fringe users" are such a small group then it
> should not be much of a burden. Just hire a guy to say "we feeel your
> pain", which is all support generally does anyhow.
>
> I'm sure the QA would kill them though, since they'd need to have
> some.
>
That is a price that has to be factored in.
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
chris. Consider that I simply said: "The world is best off only when
everyone is using the most efficiently cost effective solution", which
is bound to be true. You find some need to argue with that, somehow
sensing that it must be a pro-MS or anti-linux lead-in of some kind and
you will have none of it! LOL!!!
Rick
... and you show your stupidity again.
--
Rick
GreyCloud
Go to Intels website... and use their search box... type in
"Benefits of Linux"... press go.
And you'll see why Intel switched to Linux... not windwoes.
flatfish+++
>
> That must explain why IE usage is dropping, firefox is increasing.
And it should because FF is a better browser than IE but there are growing
pains.
> As for java please give examples of sites using java that won't work
> under alternative brosers? My bank switched to java several years ago
> for the simple reason that non-windows customers could use their online
> banking.
Don't know if it's java, but Verizon is terrible with FF.
You can't pay your bill with anything other than IE.
Rick
Except I used Firefox to pay my Verizon bill yesterday.
--
Rick
flatfish+++
Linønut
This is the third time for this post. Odd.
Bob
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 01:36:57 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>> That must explain why IE usage is dropping, firefox is increasing.
>
> And it should because FF is a better browser than IE but there are growing
> pains.
>> As for java please give examples of sites using java that won't work
>> under alternative brosers? My bank switched to java several years ago
>> for the simple reason that non-windows customers could use their online
>> banking.
>
> Don't know if it's java, but Verizon is terrible with FF.
> You can't pay your bill with anything other than IE.
That always Javascript, not Java, I think. Sometimes an MS scripting
language too.
> Note, this works up until you hit submit which is when it fails so it can
> only be verified by people with Verizon accounts, like me.
They designed their pages to work only in IE. It's called business. The
developers of the site told Verizon that it would be cheaper if they
made it only work in IE.
> However there are reams of pages on the net complaining about it.
If FF et al ever get big enough, this behavior could be stupid for business.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anti-scammers/ A new epidemic - the
Nigerian "romance scam": Nigerian crooks using dating sites, Yahoo chat
rooms and Yahoo messenger to con people. Using fake profiles with photos
of real models, they "romance" both men and women and then con them.
Join the group to learn more.
Sinister Midget
> billwg wrote:
>>somehow
>>sensing that it must be a pro-MS or anti-linux lead-in of some kind and
>>you will have none of it! LOL!!!
>
> Idiot.
Didn't Bilge go on the DuFuS 30 day sleepover like some of the other
trolls?
Seriously, this "boycott" is beginning to look a little like a "hunger
strike" that some famous busybodies went on in the 80s. They wouldn't
eat until they got hungry. Then they'd hand the strike over to some
other famous person in the chain and go eat. The new person would stop
eating until they got hungry, then they'd hand it off.
The trolls appear to maybe be playing the same "serious" game. Half of
them stay here and get fed until the other half get hungry. Then they
switch.
Doofie and EZKill should be back in a few days. Then it's Quirk's and
Timmy's turns. But Queef'll double-cross them, just you watch.
--
1010011010: The binary number of the Beast
Tim Smith
Sinister Midget <fardb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2038-01-19, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> claimed:
> > billwg wrote:
>
> >>somehow
> >>sensing that it must be a pro-MS or anti-linux lead-in of some kind and
> >>you will have none of it! LOL!!!
> >
> > Idiot.
>
> Didn't Bilge go on the DuFuS 30 day sleepover like some of the other
> trolls?
Both the chrisv post you are directly responding to, and the billwg post
he is quoting, where posted on Sep 3, *2005*. Any particular reason you
waited over 4 years to respond?
--
--Tim Smith
bleak_fire_
>
I hope you're all prepared for the Millenium Bug, it's three months
away... :)
--
bleak_fire_
since nine-seven