Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime
316 views
Skip to first unread message
Ron
Apr 2, 2017, 6:04:51 PM4/2/17
to
Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
CS4, I get the message,
"To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
SE 6 runtime."
Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
security on my Mac?
TIA,
Ron
--
_____________________________
Ron, the humblest guy in town
CS4, I get the message,
"To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
SE 6 runtime."
Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
security on my Mac?
TIA,
Ron
--
_____________________________
Ron, the humblest guy in town
nospam
Apr 2, 2017, 6:13:40 PM4/2/17
to
In article <1n3v0er.1nf9pex1f1eggqN%RonT...@null.invalid>, Ron
> I get the message,
> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
> SE 6 runtime."
> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps
no.
> or reduce
> security on my Mac?
it's java, and an old version at that, so yes.
photoshop does not use java (it's an apple bug that won't ever be
fixed), so it's possible to spoof the check, however, you now have to
disable sip to do so and keep reapplying the fix every time you update
sierra, making it not a viable option.
<RonT...@null.invalid> wrote:
> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
> CS4,
it's long overdue to upgrade.
> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
> CS4,
> I get the message,
> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
> SE 6 runtime."
> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps
> or reduce
> security on my Mac?
photoshop does not use java (it's an apple bug that won't ever be
fixed), so it's possible to spoof the check, however, you now have to
disable sip to do so and keep reapplying the fix every time you update
sierra, making it not a viable option.
Davoud
Apr 2, 2017, 8:53:18 PM4/2/17
to
Ron:
Always up-to-date, no obsolete Java (with possible security risks)
required.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
> CS4, I get the message,
> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
> SE 6 runtime."
> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
> security on my Mac?
> TIA,
> Ron
For $10 per month you get a subscription to Lightroom and Photoshop.
> CS4, I get the message,
> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
> SE 6 runtime."
> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
> security on my Mac?
> TIA,
> Ron
Always up-to-date, no obsolete Java (with possible security risks)
required.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Lewis
Apr 2, 2017, 10:37:11 PM4/2/17
to
In message <1n3v0er.1nf9pex1f1eggqN%RonT...@null.invalid> Ron <RonT...@null.invalid> wrote:
> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
> CS4, I get the message,
> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
> SE 6 runtime."
> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
> security on my Mac?
Yes.
> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
> CS4, I get the message,
> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
> SE 6 runtime."
> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
> security on my Mac?
--
"Two years from now, spam will be solved," -- Bill Gates, January, 2004
PhillipJones
Apr 3, 2017, 5:47:11 PM4/3/17
to
Ron wrote:
> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
> CS4, I get the message,
> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
> SE 6 runtime."
> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
> security on my Mac?
> TIA,
> Ron
>
>
It hasn't affected OSes up to Sierra/ But I haven't tried Sierra Yet. I
> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
> CS4, I get the message,
> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
> SE 6 runtime."
> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
> security on my Mac?
> TIA,
> Ron
>
>
know every time you switch to a new OS you have to reload it.
I'll have to try and see I have one legacy program I'd like to continue
to work as I use it to maintain a website I have I designed it using
DreamWeaver and way to large and complicated to redesign using something
else.
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjon...@comcast.net
http://phillipjones-cet.net/
PhillipJones
Apr 3, 2017, 6:05:05 PM4/3/17
to
PhillipJones wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
>> CS4, I get the message,
>> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
>> SE 6 runtime."
>> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
>> security on my Mac?
>> TIA,
>> Ron
>>
>>
> It hasn't affected OSes up to Sierra/ But I haven't tried Sierra Yet. I
> know every time you switch to a new OS you have to reload it.
> I'll have to try and see I have one legacy program I'd like to continue
> to work as I use it to maintain a website I have I designed it using
> DreamWeaver and way to large and complicated to redesign using something
> else.
>
>
Well I ran it Dreamweaver came alive and nothing seem to act strange.
> Ron wrote:
>> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
>> CS4, I get the message,
>> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
>> SE 6 runtime."
>> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
>> security on my Mac?
>> TIA,
>> Ron
>>
>>
> It hasn't affected OSes up to Sierra/ But I haven't tried Sierra Yet. I
> know every time you switch to a new OS you have to reload it.
> I'll have to try and see I have one legacy program I'd like to continue
> to work as I use it to maintain a website I have I designed it using
> DreamWeaver and way to large and complicated to redesign using something
> else.
>
>
I'd love to subscribe to Dreamweaver as I need to add a section my website.
Ron
Apr 3, 2017, 10:56:07 PM4/3/17
to
Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
like the subscription model...
like the subscription model...
nospam
Apr 3, 2017, 11:01:22 PM4/3/17
to
In article <1n3x8nr.2o3ekl1jn7h8iN%RonT...@null.invalid>, Ron
particularly if you're still using cs4.
<RonT...@null.invalid> wrote:
> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
> like the subscription model...
then get photoshop elements, which likely does more than you need,
> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
> like the subscription model...
particularly if you're still using cs4.
Jolly Roger
Apr 3, 2017, 11:43:48 PM4/3/17
to
needs.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
JR
Davoud
Apr 4, 2017, 12:23:44 AM4/4/17
to
Ron:
people who subscribe via monthly payments to electricity, phone
service, gas service, cable TV, water, mortgage or rent payments, car
payments, magazines, newspapers, et al. balk at a subscription model
for world-class graphics software. $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
> like the subscription model...
That's a common theme, and a personal decision. It amuses me that
> like the subscription model...
people who subscribe via monthly payments to electricity, phone
service, gas service, cable TV, water, mortgage or rent payments, car
payments, magazines, newspapers, et al. balk at a subscription model
for world-class graphics software. $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
dorayme
Apr 4, 2017, 1:44:00 AM4/4/17
to
In article <040420170023392529%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:
> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
--
dorayme
wrote:
> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
--
dorayme
Calum
Apr 4, 2017, 8:07:29 AM4/4/17
to
On 04/04/2017 05:23, Davoud wrote:
> Ron:
>> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
>> like the subscription model...
>
> That's a common theme, and a personal decision. It amuses me that
> people who subscribe via monthly payments to electricity, phone
> service, gas service, cable TV, water, mortgage or rent payments, car
> payments, magazines, newspapers, et al. balk at a subscription model
> for world-class graphics software.
People use their electricity, phone, gas, TV, water and house every day,
> Ron:
>> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
>> like the subscription model...
>
> That's a common theme, and a personal decision. It amuses me that
> people who subscribe via monthly payments to electricity, phone
> service, gas service, cable TV, water, mortgage or rent payments, car
> payments, magazines, newspapers, et al. balk at a subscription model
> for world-class graphics software.
so an ongoing payment feels appropriate. The vast majority of people
using Photoshop that frequently and regularly are professionals whose
subscriptions are likely either a business expense, or being paid for by
their employer.
For 'normal' people who might only need Photoshop's features a few times
a year, I completely understand why paying for it monthly just feels
like a waste of money, whether it really is or not.
nospam
Apr 4, 2017, 11:03:35 AM4/4/17
to
In article <oc029u$unu$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Calum
street price.
<com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
> For 'normal' people who might only need Photoshop's features a few times
> a year, I completely understand why paying for it monthly just feels
> like a waste of money, whether it really is or not.
for normal people, there is photoshop elements, which is about $50-60
> For 'normal' people who might only need Photoshop's features a few times
> a year, I completely understand why paying for it monthly just feels
> like a waste of money, whether it really is or not.
street price.
Jolly Roger
Apr 4, 2017, 11:20:43 AM4/4/17
to
On 2017-04-04, Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:
> Ron:
>> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
>> like the subscription model...
>
> That's a common theme, and a personal decision. It amuses me that
> people who subscribe via monthly payments to electricity, phone
> service, gas service, cable TV, water, mortgage or rent payments, car
> payments, magazines, newspapers, et al. balk at a subscription model
> for world-class graphics software. $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
Laugh it up, fuzz ball. : ) Meanwhile, it amuses some of us that people
> Ron:
>> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
>> like the subscription model...
>
> That's a common theme, and a personal decision. It amuses me that
> people who subscribe via monthly payments to electricity, phone
> service, gas service, cable TV, water, mortgage or rent payments, car
> payments, magazines, newspapers, et al. balk at a subscription model
> for world-class graphics software. $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
will gleefully support a scheme that results in them not being able to
use a piece of software if they don't continually fork over cash for it.
Some of us value longevity and have computers that are decades old that
are (prepare yourself for this shock) still able to run all of the
software on them today without paying a single red cent, because that
software did not demand a subscription. In fact many of the companies
that created said software are no longer around today, or have moved on
to newer versions, yet the software still runs just fine because it does
not require connection to the internet or subscription servers that no
longer exist. There is high value in that for some people.
David B.
Apr 4, 2017, 1:32:10 PM4/4/17
to
Hello again, Phillip Jones :-)
I first 'met' you on the Annexcafe User2User group.
Then, later, I met you here:
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/profile/f90960d0-e642-e011-9577-d485645a8348#user-profile-tab-profile
Our mutual 'friend' - '...winston' - then arranged that posts which you
and I had made on the 'Microsoft Answers' forums were surrepticiously
removed.
Do you remember that?
WHY would he have done that? Any idea?
--
David B.
I first 'met' you on the Annexcafe User2User group.
Then, later, I met you here:
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/profile/f90960d0-e642-e011-9577-d485645a8348#user-profile-tab-profile
Our mutual 'friend' - '...winston' - then arranged that posts which you
and I had made on the 'Microsoft Answers' forums were surrepticiously
removed.
Do you remember that?
WHY would he have done that? Any idea?
--
David B.
Shadow
Apr 4, 2017, 2:13:28 PM4/4/17
to
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:32:10 +0100, "David B."
<Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>Hello again, Phillip Jones :-)
>
>I first 'met' you in the public toilet behind the pub in Devon.
<Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>Hello again, Phillip Jones :-)
>
> Boy were we drunk !
> Do you remember when ...
><family_unsafe_ graphic_details_removed>
BD, Usenet is NOT email. Please configure your client
correctly.
TIA
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
David B.
Apr 4, 2017, 2:30:27 PM4/4/17
to
On 4/4/2017 7:13 PM, Shadow wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:32:10 +0100, "David B."
> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello again, Phillip Jones :-)
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:32:10 +0100, "David B."
> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello again, Phillip Jones :-)
> BD, Usenet is NOT email. Please configure your client
> correctly.
> TIA
> []'s
When I posted as my deceased friend (a retired Royal Navy Commander, RN
> correctly.
> TIA
> []'s
(mechanical engineer), THIS is what transpired:-
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook_com/forum/opeople-ocontacts/access-denied/561900f2-28a7-45c8-ad41-be014e8a8810
What I really like are ANSWERS - valid ones!
--
David B
aka David Dewgud
David B.
Apr 4, 2017, 2:54:11 PM4/4/17
to
On 4/4/2017 7:13 PM, Shadow wrote:
> BD, Usenet is NOT email. Please configure your client
> correctly.
> TIA
> []'s
Indeed! :-)
> correctly.
> TIA
> []'s
I was posting as David Dewgud, too!
One can't trust ANYTHING one sees on the Internet!
--
David Dewgud
FrozenNorth
Apr 4, 2017, 3:11:07 PM4/4/17
to
--
Froz....
David B.
Apr 4, 2017, 3:33:41 PM4/4/17
to
In real life, I mostly believe what people tell me - especially when I
can look them in the eye. Here on Usenet, anything goes, as I expect you
will have noticed!
--
David Dewgud
burfordTjustice
Apr 4, 2017, 3:49:13 PM4/4/17
to
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:32:10 +0100
Liar!
winston is not your friend. He banned you.
FrozenNorth
Apr 4, 2017, 3:51:37 PM4/4/17
to
few in real life. If you show most people a bit of respect they will
return it in kind. Crossposting all over the place, and changing nyms
regularly is the mark of a troll and bad guy.
--
Froz....
Savageduck
Apr 4, 2017, 5:25:22 PM4/4/17
to
subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
Apr 4, 2017, 5:26:21 PM4/4/17
to
In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnF...@giganews.com>, Savageduck
more than adequate.
plenty of options.
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
> >> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
> >
> > This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
> > people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
> >
>
> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>
> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
and the adobe route, photoshop elements, which for a non-pro user is
> >> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
> >> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
> >
> > This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
> > people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
> >
>
> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>
> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
more than adequate.
plenty of options.
Savageduck
Apr 4, 2017, 5:39:26 PM4/4/17
to
Lightroom through upgrades for years. I have been an Adobe CC subscribers
for 3+ years and for those of us who use LR+PS as our workflow it is a
bargain. I have never written the cost off as a business expense, or had it
paid for by an employer.
For those Mac users who don't care to pay for the Adobe CC model there are
the very good Luminar, Affinity Photo, or Pixelmator to use.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
PhillipJones
Apr 4, 2017, 5:41:36 PM4/4/17
to
just a common user. No I a Community Moderator in the Mac office
section. I mostly deal with Word and Excel Mac. Although I answer Mac OS
issues that can have an affect/effect on Office Mac.
Shadow
Apr 4, 2017, 5:53:52 PM4/4/17
to
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 20:33:42 +0100, "David B."
<Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> Only bad guys change posting nyms as often as you do.
>
>No. It's simply a question of teasing out the truth.
OK, so after 12 years "teasing" a defunct forum, what is the
<Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> Only bad guys change posting nyms as often as you do.
>
>No. It's simply a question of teasing out the truth.
"truth" ?
Just explain what you discovered a give us a brief account of
what you reported to the police, and their reply.
I'm curious. No links or names please, that would be STALKING.
[]'s
PS OT up, you seem to have accidentally crossposted to TWO off-topic
newsgroups. As usual.
PhillipJones
Apr 4, 2017, 5:56:29 PM4/4/17
to
software(s) are going to. I pay for separate subscription for Acrobat
and also Photography setup (Photoshop and Lightroom) if I were to pay
sub for Dreamweaver it would Double or triple my subscription payments
to Adobe. Now Subscription to Office (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Outlook,
and One note, is a bargain $99 a Year a Life time license is close t
$400.00 for Home/Business version.
PhillipJones
Apr 4, 2017, 6:05:48 PM4/4/17
to
Gas/Oil, Water/Sewer/Utilities , Rent/lease/Mortgage are necessities of
living. Without a vehicle it's not an absolute necessity it would be a
severe inconvenience. It all depends on your situation. If you got the
necessary funds then go ahead. if your on a fixed income then you have
to pick and choose.
Jolly Roger
Apr 4, 2017, 7:46:08 PM4/4/17
to
software to run indefinitely without a subscription or connection to a
server, I'd go for Photoshop Elements.
Savageduck
Apr 4, 2017, 8:25:33 PM4/4/17
to
On 2017-04-04 23:46:05 +0000, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> said:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnF...@giganews.com>, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
>>>>> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
>>>>
>>>> This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
>>>> people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
>>> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>>>
>>> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
>>> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
>>
>> and the adobe route, photoshop elements, which for a non-pro user is
>> more than adequate.
>>
>> plenty of options.
>
> Yep! If I absolutely had to have Photoshop features, and wanted the
> software to run indefinitely without a subscription or connection to a
> server, I'd go for Photoshop Elements.
There is another added benefit to several of these, Luminar, Exposure
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnF...@giganews.com>, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
>>>>> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
>>>>
>>>> This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
>>>> people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
>>> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>>>
>>> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
>>> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
>>
>> and the adobe route, photoshop elements, which for a non-pro user is
>> more than adequate.
>>
>> plenty of options.
>
> Yep! If I absolutely had to have Photoshop features, and wanted the
> software to run indefinitely without a subscription or connection to a
> server, I'd go for Photoshop Elements.
X2, and On1 Photo RAW 2017 also install as plugins for PS, PSE, and LR.
Pixelmator, Affinity Photos, and some On1 Develop features install as
Photos extensions.
<https://macphun.com/luminar>
<https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/>
<http://www.pixelmator.com>
<https://www.alienskin.com/exposure/>
<https://www.on1.com/products/photo-raw/>
BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Apr 4, 2017, 8:28:25 PM4/4/17
to
On 2017-04-05 00:25:26 +0000, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
> On 2017-04-04 23:46:05 +0000, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>
>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnF...@giganews.com>, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
>>>>>> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
>>>>> people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
>>>> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
>>>> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
>>>
>>> and the adobe route, photoshop elements, which for a non-pro user is
>>> more than adequate.
>>>
>>> plenty of options.
>>
>> Yep! If I absolutely had to have Photoshop features, and wanted the
>> software to run indefinitely without a subscription or connection to a
>> server, I'd go for Photoshop Elements.
I meant to add;
> On 2017-04-04 23:46:05 +0000, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>
>> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnF...@giganews.com>, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
>>>>>> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
>>>>> people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
>>>> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
>>>> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
>>>
>>> and the adobe route, photoshop elements, which for a non-pro user is
>>> more than adequate.
>>>
>>> plenty of options.
>>
>> Yep! If I absolutely had to have Photoshop features, and wanted the
>> software to run indefinitely without a subscription or connection to a
>> server, I'd go for Photoshop Elements.
These days there are plenty of very good non-subscription, standalone
photo editing/processing apps available, some OSX exclusive, and some
cross platform OSX/Win. Along with the above mentioned PS Elements,
Luminar, Affinity Photo, and Pixelmator, there are also Alienskin
Exposure X2, and On1 Photo RAW 2017.
Jolly Roger
Apr 4, 2017, 8:52:44 PM4/4/17
to
On 2017-04-05, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2017-04-04 23:46:05 +0000, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>
>> Yep! If I absolutely had to have Photoshop features, and wanted the
>> software to run indefinitely without a subscription or connection to a
>> server, I'd go for Photoshop Elements.
>
> There is another added benefit to several of these, Luminar, Exposure
> X2, and On1 Photo RAW 2017 also install as plugins for PS, PSE, and LR.
>
> Pixelmator, Affinity Photos, and some On1 Develop features install as
> Photos extensions.
Good point. I own Affinity Photo and Pixelmator. Both are great for the
> On 2017-04-04 23:46:05 +0000, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>
>> Yep! If I absolutely had to have Photoshop features, and wanted the
>> software to run indefinitely without a subscription or connection to a
>> server, I'd go for Photoshop Elements.
>
> There is another added benefit to several of these, Luminar, Exposure
> X2, and On1 Photo RAW 2017 also install as plugins for PS, PSE, and LR.
>
> Pixelmator, Affinity Photos, and some On1 Develop features install as
> Photos extensions.
majority of my graphics needs.
><https://macphun.com/luminar>
><https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/>
><http://www.pixelmator.com>
><https://www.alienskin.com/exposure/>
><https://www.on1.com/products/photo-raw/>
so many viable choices these days!
> BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
> internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks
dorayme
Apr 4, 2017, 8:52:53 PM4/4/17
to
In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnF...@giganews.com>,
could have a regular use for the subscription software (see Calum's
good point), they should obviously use it?
But now, why is this *so obvious*? Perhaps the window shoppers on this
matter are short of cash and perhaps they can't make it pay for them.
Perhaps a lot of other things about *other people*. Amazing - or not -
how so many people have such very narrow view of others! Very
Republican really!
> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
In other words there are other options.
By the way, wtf do you guys do with all this fancy latest software?
Making the world a better place? I get along fine with CS4 (for my
business and personal needs)... but then I am mainly stuck on Snow
Leopard and it may prove harder later on.
--
dorayme
> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > In article <040420170023392529%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
> >> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
> >
> > This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
> > people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
> >
>
> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>
Depends on what exact question we are discussing. You think if someone
> > In article <040420170023392529%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
> >> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
> >
> > This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
> > people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
> >
>
> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>
could have a regular use for the subscription software (see Calum's
good point), they should obviously use it?
But now, why is this *so obvious*? Perhaps the window shoppers on this
matter are short of cash and perhaps they can't make it pay for them.
Perhaps a lot of other things about *other people*. Amazing - or not -
how so many people have such very narrow view of others! Very
Republican really!
> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
By the way, wtf do you guys do with all this fancy latest software?
Making the world a better place? I get along fine with CS4 (for my
business and personal needs)... but then I am mainly stuck on Snow
Leopard and it may prove harder later on.
--
dorayme
Savageduck
Apr 4, 2017, 9:55:13 PM4/4/17
to
On 2017-04-04 23:53:03 +0000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> said:
> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnF...@giganews.com>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> In article <040420170023392529%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
>>>> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
>>>
>>> This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
>>> people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
>>>
>>
>> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
>> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>>
>
> Depends on what exact question we are discussing. You think if someone
> could have a regular use for the subscription software (see Calum's
> good point), they should obviously use it?
Over the years I have developed a Lightroom + Photoshop workflow which
> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnF...@giganews.com>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> In article <040420170023392529%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
>>>> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
>>>
>>> This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
>>> people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
>>>
>>
>> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
>> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>>
>
> Depends on what exact question we are discussing. You think if someone
> could have a regular use for the subscription software (see Calum's
> good point), they should obviously use it?
I am very familiar with, and as a result in my photography enthusiast
mind I can produce images which first and foremost satisfy me. However,
these days Lightroom has become a more than adequate photo editor,
especially if you do not need PS for compositing. So LR is my primary
processing/editing tool.
That said, I have also installed various LR & PS plugins and upgrades
to those plugins. Along with those, I have explored and bought most of
the various alternative software, and I find myself impressed with all
they have to offer.
>
> But now, why is this *so obvious*? Perhaps the window shoppers on this
> matter are short of cash and perhaps they can't make it pay for them.
enthusiast photographer, and in all my years of photography I have only
had one individual insist on paying me for the work I did. So I haven't
made it pay for me.
Photography is strictly for my pleasure and over the years I have spent
tens of thousands of dollars on cameras, lenses, accessories and
software. As a matter of fact, today I just spent $2000+ on a new
camera body and some other stuff from B&H.
> Perhaps a lot of other things about *other people*. Amazing - or not -
> how so many people have such very narrow view of others! Very
> Republican really!
Sanders White House.
>> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
>> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
>
> In other words there are other options.
> By the way, wtf do you guys do with all this fancy latest software?
> Making the world a better place? I get along fine with CS4 (for my
> business and personal needs)... but then I am mainly stuck on Snow
> Leopard and it may prove harder later on.
borrowed time. When you finally upgrade/update your system, CS4 might
not be able to follow. Then you are going to have to decide just how
much you need PS. One of those other options might suit you better, or
you might take the plunge into the $9.99/month Adobe CC subscription.
Today, if I had to make do with one of the options I would seriously
consider Luminar, AlienSkin Exposure X2, or On1 Photo RAW 2017 all of
which work superbly as standalone apps.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
dorayme
Apr 4, 2017, 10:58:51 PM4/4/17
to
In article <2017040418550753144-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Photography is strictly for my pleasure...
>
Are you quite sure? This matter is not usually a coin where business
is one side and pleasure the other. More complicated than than that
usually. Not many art photographers, for example, come out much ahead
financially for it, but it is not *strictly* for their pleasure only.
It is important to them that they can share.
In my case, in case you are interested, I have had many photographic
jobs and sold a fair few pictures and it has been also a part of
website design in recent years. A lot of the great satisfaction in it
left me with digital. Sure easier now. Perhaps it is too easy now, the
wonder of the process not there so much. Big subject...
> > Perhaps a lot of other things about *other people*. Amazing - or not -
> > how so many people have such very narrow view of others! Very
> > Republican really!
>
> My particular political sensibilities would have preferred a Bernie
> Sanders White House.
>
Yes, he is impressive still and I hope his rallying calls against that
"pathological liar" president does good.
...
> Unfortunately CS4 on Snow Leopard, while very capable is running on
> borrowed time. When you finally upgrade/update your system, CS4 might
> not be able to follow. Then you are going to have to decide just how
> much you need PS.
I have it vaguely in mind that for a very long time I will have at
least one or two machines capable of running SL even if I use more
modern for other purposes. Reminder to self, look out for any second
hand Macs in good nick to keep as spare. (Why is my late 2009 Macbook
still going strong? Has a constant of nature ceased to be? Is its
longevity a greater miracle than bearded men in rags walking on water
or turning a bit of bread and fish into a lot just like that?)
--
dorayme
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2017-04-04 23:53:03 +0000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> said:
>
> > In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnF...@giganews.com>,
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
...
> On 2017-04-04 23:53:03 +0000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> said:
>
> > In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnF...@giganews.com>,
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> Photography is strictly for my pleasure...
>
Are you quite sure? This matter is not usually a coin where business
is one side and pleasure the other. More complicated than than that
usually. Not many art photographers, for example, come out much ahead
financially for it, but it is not *strictly* for their pleasure only.
It is important to them that they can share.
In my case, in case you are interested, I have had many photographic
jobs and sold a fair few pictures and it has been also a part of
website design in recent years. A lot of the great satisfaction in it
left me with digital. Sure easier now. Perhaps it is too easy now, the
wonder of the process not there so much. Big subject...
> > Perhaps a lot of other things about *other people*. Amazing - or not -
> > how so many people have such very narrow view of others! Very
> > Republican really!
>
> My particular political sensibilities would have preferred a Bernie
> Sanders White House.
>
"pathological liar" president does good.
...
> Unfortunately CS4 on Snow Leopard, while very capable is running on
> borrowed time. When you finally upgrade/update your system, CS4 might
> not be able to follow. Then you are going to have to decide just how
> much you need PS.
least one or two machines capable of running SL even if I use more
modern for other purposes. Reminder to self, look out for any second
hand Macs in good nick to keep as spare. (Why is my late 2009 Macbook
still going strong? Has a constant of nature ceased to be? Is its
longevity a greater miracle than bearded men in rags walking on water
or turning a bit of bread and fish into a lot just like that?)
--
dorayme
Savageduck
Apr 4, 2017, 11:28:56 PM4/4/17
to
On 2017-04-05 01:59:01 +0000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> said:
> In article <2017040418550753144-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-04-04 23:53:03 +0000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnF...@giganews.com>,
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> ...
>
>> Photography is strictly for my pleasure...
>>
>
> Are you quite sure? This matter is not usually a coin where business
> is one side and pleasure the other. More complicated than than that
> usually. Not many art photographers, for example, come out much ahead
> financially for it, but it is not *strictly* for their pleasure only.
> It is important to them that they can share.
You might say my photography is eclectic as I shoot stuff from
> In article <2017040418550753144-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-04-04 23:53:03 +0000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnF...@giganews.com>,
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> ...
>
>> Photography is strictly for my pleasure...
>>
>
> Are you quite sure? This matter is not usually a coin where business
> is one side and pleasure the other. More complicated than than that
> usually. Not many art photographers, for example, come out much ahead
> financially for it, but it is not *strictly* for their pleasure only.
> It is important to them that they can share.
landscapes, motorsport, airshows, candid street, and more. Sometimes I
look to create something beyond the purely documentary, but mostly it
is all for my head.
A taste:
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/fi39trnaoroj2st/DNC_4900-Edit.jpg>
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/o92cqimzgevxui1/DNC_5064-Edit.jpg>
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/5f6xbgibt5bmvmd/DNC5067-Edit.jpg>
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/vhq3tebnlujg7jf/_DSF2575.jpg>
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/r9lv818cecxwxaq/_DSF0337.jpg>
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/02uvcpbk5i1oo40/DNC1181-Edit-3.jpg>
> In my case, in case you are interested, I have had many photographic
> jobs and sold a fair few pictures and it has been also a part of
> website design in recent years. A lot of the great satisfaction in it
> left me with digital. Sure easier now. Perhaps it is too easy now, the
> wonder of the process not there so much. Big subject...
>
>>> Perhaps a lot of other things about *other people*. Amazing - or not -
>>> how so many people have such very narrow view of others! Very
>>> Republican really!
>>
>> My particular political sensibilities would have preferred a Bernie
>> Sanders White House.
>>
>
> Yes, he is impressive still and I hope his rallying calls against that
> "pathological liar" president does good.
>
> ...
>
>> Unfortunately CS4 on Snow Leopard, while very capable is running on
>> borrowed time. When you finally upgrade/update your system, CS4 might
>> not be able to follow. Then you are going to have to decide just how
>> much you need PS.
>
> I have it vaguely in mind that for a very long time I will have at
> least one or two machines capable of running SL even if I use more
> modern for other purposes. Reminder to self, look out for any second
> hand Macs in good nick to keep as spare. (Why is my late 2009 Macbook
> still going strong? Has a constant of nature ceased to be? Is its
> longevity a greater miracle than bearded men in rags walking on water
> or turning a bit of bread and fish into a lot just like that?)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
David B.
Apr 5, 2017, 5:21:08 AM4/5/17
to
On 4/4/2017 10:41 PM, PhillipJones wrote:
> David B. wrote:
>> Hello again, Phillip Jones :-)
>>
>> I first 'met' you on the Annexcafe User2User group.
>>
>> Then, later, I met you here:
>> https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/profile/f90960d0-e642-e011-9577-d485645a8348#user-profile-tab-profile
>>
>>
>>
>> Our mutual 'friend' - '...winston' - then arranged that posts which you
>> and I had made on the 'Microsoft Answers' forums were surrepticiously
>> removed.
>>
>> Do you remember that?
>>
>> WHY would he have done that? Any idea?
>>
> Have no idea. Why it was removed. When first started with answers I was
> just a common user. Now I'm a Community Moderator in the Mac office
> David B. wrote:
>> Hello again, Phillip Jones :-)
>>
>> I first 'met' you on the Annexcafe User2User group.
>>
>> Then, later, I met you here:
>> https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/profile/f90960d0-e642-e011-9577-d485645a8348#user-profile-tab-profile
>>
>>
>>
>> Our mutual 'friend' - '...winston' - then arranged that posts which you
>> and I had made on the 'Microsoft Answers' forums were surrepticiously
>> removed.
>>
>> Do you remember that?
>>
>> WHY would he have done that? Any idea?
>>
> Have no idea. Why it was removed. When first started with answers I was
> section. I mostly deal with Word and Excel Mac. Although I answer Mac OS
> issues that can have an affect/effect on Office Mac.
Hello again, Phillip. Thanks again for responding. :-)
> issues that can have an affect/effect on Office Mac.
I expect you've read here:-
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook_com/forum/opeople-ocontacts/access-denied/561900f2-28a7-45c8-ad41-be014e8a8810
I STILL do not understand WHY '...winston' needs 11 Microsoft Accounts.
Perhaps because he's an MVP; is that it?!!
Can YOU explain - or maybe ask on the Microsoft Answers forums.
Alternatively , perhaps, ask him on the 'new' User2User newsgroup which
is running on the 'news.dogagent.com' server?
As far as I can tell, just ONE account provides a 'key' to all sections
of the Microsoft empire. That's what it says here anyway:-
http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/account/
One last thing. Can you find out why this item has been deleted?
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/6a77429e-9a0c-4f41-a4a4-cb861b717224#ec6fe26a-3d75-41d4-b0b1-0dbc72bfde30
If you can read my comments under this YouTube video they may prove
helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ0sou3GHBQ
I kept a screenshot of part of my conversation with 'Rob'. You may read
same here if you wish:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjn1qy8d9om8qy6/Reply%20to%20Rob%20in%20Microsoft%20Answers%20%28JPG%29%202.jpg?dl=0
I'll be most interested in any comments you may like to make. You are
one of the few people I've met on-line who I completely trust, Phillip!
Have a grand day! :-)
--
David B.
David B.
Apr 5, 2017, 5:41:07 AM4/5/17
to
On 4/4/2017 10:53 PM, Shadow wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 20:33:42 +0100, "David B."
> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>> Only bad guys change posting nyms as often as you do.
>>
>> No. It's simply a question of teasing out the truth.
>
> OK, so after 12 years "teasing" a defunct forum, what is the
> "truth" ?
I've no idea to what you are referring.
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 20:33:42 +0100, "David B."
> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>> Only bad guys change posting nyms as often as you do.
>>
>> No. It's simply a question of teasing out the truth.
>
> OK, so after 12 years "teasing" a defunct forum, what is the
> "truth" ?
> Just explain what you discovered a give us a brief account of
> what you reported to the police, and their reply.
>
> []'s
I don't believe you are in any way curious. It's a shame, because when I
came to the alt.2600 group I had hoped to get help from some very clever
and experienced folk.
> PS OT up, you seem to have accidentally crossposted to TWO off-topic
> newsgroups. As usual.
--
.
burfordTjustice
Apr 5, 2017, 7:01:15 AM4/5/17
to
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:10:47 +0100
"David B." <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> I'll be most interested in any comments you may like to make. You are
> one of the few people I've met on-line who I completely trust,
> Phillip!
until you don't do his bidding then he will stalk you like several
"David B." <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> I'll be most interested in any comments you may like to make. You are
> one of the few people I've met on-line who I completely trust,
> Phillip!
others.
burfordTjustice
Apr 5, 2017, 7:21:06 AM4/5/17
to
> I STILL do not understand WHY '...winston' needs 11 Microsoft
> Accounts.
Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you david brooks (Devon)
> Accounts.
David B.
Apr 5, 2017, 7:21:06 AM4/5/17
to
On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
We're not discussing 'nyms' - YOU don't HAVE a MICROSOFT ACCOUNT!
> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
We're not discussing 'nyms' - YOU don't HAVE a MICROSOFT ACCOUNT!
Shadow
Apr 5, 2017, 7:40:42 AM4/5/17
to
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:30:22 +0100, "David B."
[]'s
<Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>On 4/4/2017 10:53 PM, Shadow wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 20:33:42 +0100, "David B."
>> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Only bad guys change posting nyms as often as you do.
>>>
>>> No. It's simply a question of teasing out the truth.
>>
>> OK, so after 12 years "teasing" a defunct forum, what is the
>> "truth" ?
>
>I've no idea to what you are referring.
I know.
>On 4/4/2017 10:53 PM, Shadow wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 20:33:42 +0100, "David B."
>> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Only bad guys change posting nyms as often as you do.
>>>
>>> No. It's simply a question of teasing out the truth.
>>
>> OK, so after 12 years "teasing" a defunct forum, what is the
>> "truth" ?
>
>I've no idea to what you are referring.
[]'s
Shadow
Apr 5, 2017, 8:06:56 AM4/5/17
to
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:15:17 +0100, "David B."
<Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
>> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
>We're not discussing 'nyms'
Yes we are. It's a crime to access a PRIVATE server you've
<Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
>> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
>We're not discussing 'nyms'
been BANNED on. Creating countless new nyms is proof you are aware you
were BANNED.
Read the BRITISH law. It's quite specific.
burfordTjustice
Apr 5, 2017, 8:41:06 AM4/5/17
to
On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:10:47 +0100
"David B." <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> I STILL do not understand WHY '...winston' needs 11 Microsoft
> Accounts.
Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you david brooks (Devon)
"David B." <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> I STILL do not understand WHY '...winston' needs 11 Microsoft
> Accounts.
nospam
Apr 5, 2017, 1:36:05 PM4/5/17
to
In article <ekitep...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point,
unless they're updated to a more recent version.
cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years.
<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
>
> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is
> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks
subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis.
> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
>
> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is
> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks
it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point,
unless they're updated to a more recent version.
cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years.
burfordTjustice
Apr 5, 2017, 4:14:54 PM4/5/17
to
On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:06:05 -0300
Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:15:17 +0100, "David B."
> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
> >On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
> >> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
>
> >We're not discussing 'nyms'
>
> Yes we are. It's a crime to access a PRIVATE server you've
> been BANNED on. Creating countless new nyms is proof you are aware you
> were BANNED.
> Read the BRITISH law. It's quite specific.
> []'s
Have you filed a complaint with the Devon constabulary?
Shadow <S...@dow.br> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:15:17 +0100, "David B."
> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
> >On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
> >> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
>
> >We're not discussing 'nyms'
>
> Yes we are. It's a crime to access a PRIVATE server you've
> been BANNED on. Creating countless new nyms is proof you are aware you
> were BANNED.
> Read the BRITISH law. It's quite specific.
> []'s
Good money says nope, just running your gilie man mouth.
dorayme
Apr 5, 2017, 5:00:39 PM4/5/17
to
In article <2017040420284959745-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/02uvcpbk5i1oo40/DNC1181-Edit-3.jpg>
Good for you. Nice portrait, care to say anything about it?
--
dorayme
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> You might say my photography is eclectic as I shoot stuff from
> landscapes, motorsport, airshows, candid street, and more. Sometimes I
> look to create something beyond the purely documentary, but mostly it
> is all for my head.
>
> A taste:
> ...
> You might say my photography is eclectic as I shoot stuff from
> landscapes, motorsport, airshows, candid street, and more. Sometimes I
> look to create something beyond the purely documentary, but mostly it
> is all for my head.
>
> A taste:
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/02uvcpbk5i1oo40/DNC1181-Edit-3.jpg>
Good for you. Nice portrait, care to say anything about it?
--
dorayme
Savageduck
Apr 5, 2017, 5:22:25 PM4/5/17
to
grocery store, I had my D300S sitting on my passenger seat, I gave him
some change and took the shot through the rolled down window on the
passenger side.
It was processed using Photoshop + NIK Silver Efex Pro2.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
dorayme
Apr 5, 2017, 7:36:51 PM4/5/17
to
In article <2017040514221743042-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >> ...
> >> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/02uvcpbk5i1oo40/DNC1181-Edit-3.jpg>
> >
> > Good for you. Nice portrait, care to say anything about it?
>
> It was a purely opportunistic shot. He was panhandling outside a
> grocery store,
Excellent.
--
dorayme
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2017-04-05 20:00:52 +0000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> said:
>
> > In article <2017040420284959745-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >
...
> On 2017-04-05 20:00:52 +0000, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> said:
>
> > In article <2017040420284959745-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/02uvcpbk5i1oo40/DNC1181-Edit-3.jpg>
> >
> > Good for you. Nice portrait, care to say anything about it?
>
> It was a purely opportunistic shot. He was panhandling outside a
> grocery store,
--
dorayme
David B.
Apr 6, 2017, 6:36:54 AM4/6/17
to
Jolly Roger
Apr 6, 2017, 10:49:32 AM4/6/17
to
On 2017-04-05, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ekitep...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
>> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
>>
>> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is
>> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks
>
> subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis.
>
> it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point,
> unless they're updated to a more recent version.
That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of Photoshop
> In article <ekitep...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
>> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
>>
>> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is
>> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks
>
> subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis.
>
> it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point,
> unless they're updated to a more recent version.
CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some point support will
drop for older operating systems and hardware. And at some point in the
future, if and when Adobe stops supporting subscriptions for those older
versions (or Adobe drops them and moves on to better things), that
software will just stop working on those systems. My point is longevity
of software matters to some people for some use cases.
> cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years.
nospam
Apr 6, 2017, 11:12:20 AM4/6/17
to
In article <ekn2rq...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
one you're currently using.
you can also keep an older version.
> > cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years.
>
> Yet it will run *indefinitely* in contrast.
only if you don't ever upgrade the system on which it's running.
<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
> >> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
> >>
> >> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is
> >> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks
> >
> > subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis.
> >
> > it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point,
> > unless they're updated to a more recent version.
>
> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of Photoshop
> CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some point support will
> drop for older operating systems and hardware. And at some point in the
> future, if and when Adobe stops supporting subscriptions for those older
> versions (or Adobe drops them and moves on to better things), that
> software will just stop working on those systems. My point is longevity
> of software matters to some people for some use cases.
i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than the
> >
> >> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
> >> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
> >>
> >> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is
> >> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks
> >
> > subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis.
> >
> > it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point,
> > unless they're updated to a more recent version.
>
> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of Photoshop
> CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some point support will
> drop for older operating systems and hardware. And at some point in the
> future, if and when Adobe stops supporting subscriptions for those older
> versions (or Adobe drops them and moves on to better things), that
> software will just stop working on those systems. My point is longevity
> of software matters to some people for some use cases.
one you're currently using.
you can also keep an older version.
> > cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years.
>
> Yet it will run *indefinitely* in contrast.
Jolly Roger
Apr 6, 2017, 11:28:42 AM4/6/17
to
On 2017-04-06, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ekn2rq...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
>> >> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
>> >>
>> >> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is
>> >> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks
>> >
>> > subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis.
>> >
>> > it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point,
>> > unless they're updated to a more recent version.
>>
>> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of Photoshop
>> CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some point support will
>> drop for older operating systems and hardware. And at some point in the
>> future, if and when Adobe stops supporting subscriptions for those older
>> versions (or Adobe drops them and moves on to better things), that
>> software will just stop working on those systems. My point is longevity
>> of software matters to some people for some use cases.
>
> i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than the
> one you're currently using.
>
> you can also keep an older version.
Keeping it installed isn't going to be much help if it stops working
> In article <ekn2rq...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to the
>> >> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
>> >>
>> >> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is
>> >> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks
>> >
>> > subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis.
>> >
>> > it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point,
>> > unless they're updated to a more recent version.
>>
>> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of Photoshop
>> CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some point support will
>> drop for older operating systems and hardware. And at some point in the
>> future, if and when Adobe stops supporting subscriptions for those older
>> versions (or Adobe drops them and moves on to better things), that
>> software will just stop working on those systems. My point is longevity
>> of software matters to some people for some use cases.
>
> i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than the
> one you're currently using.
>
> you can also keep an older version.
because Adobe's moved on though.
>> > cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years.
>>
>> Yet it will run *indefinitely* in contrast.
>
> only if you don't ever upgrade the system on which it's running.
software on that system to run indefinitely without continual payments
and without connecting to remote subscription servers.
nospam
Apr 6, 2017, 11:44:00 AM4/6/17
to
In article <ekn557...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> >> > cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years.
> >>
> >> Yet it will run *indefinitely* in contrast.
> >
> > only if you don't ever upgrade the system on which it's running.
>
> The point is if nothing on the system is changed, some people want the
> software on that system to run indefinitely without continual payments
> and without connecting to remote subscription servers.
others want the new features in newer versions.
for those that keep using an older version on older hardware, at some
point, that hardware will stop working and they'll be forced to
upgrade.
<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> >> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
> >> >>
> >> >> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is
> >> >> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks
> >> >
> >> > subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis.
> >> >
> >> > it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point,
> >> > unless they're updated to a more recent version.
> >>
> >> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of Photoshop
> >> CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some point support will
> >> drop for older operating systems and hardware. And at some point in the
> >> future, if and when Adobe stops supporting subscriptions for those older
> >> versions (or Adobe drops them and moves on to better things), that
> >> software will just stop working on those systems. My point is longevity
> >> of software matters to some people for some use cases.
> >
> > i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than the
> > one you're currently using.
> >
> > you can also keep an older version.
>
> Keeping it installed isn't going to be much help if it stops working
> because Adobe's moved on though.
yes it will.
> >> >> > BTW: A computer with Adobe CC installed only has to be connected to
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > internet once a month, and it will function just fine off line.
> >> >>
> >> >> Right, but as soon as Adobe stops supporting older versions )which is
> >> >> inevitable), that software will cease to function. #nothanks
> >> >
> >> > subscription versions are automatically updated on a continual basis.
> >> >
> >> > it's the standalone versions that cease to function at some point,
> >> > unless they're updated to a more recent version.
> >>
> >> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of Photoshop
> >> CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some point support will
> >> drop for older operating systems and hardware. And at some point in the
> >> future, if and when Adobe stops supporting subscriptions for those older
> >> versions (or Adobe drops them and moves on to better things), that
> >> software will just stop working on those systems. My point is longevity
> >> of software matters to some people for some use cases.
> >
> > i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than the
> > one you're currently using.
> >
> > you can also keep an older version.
>
> Keeping it installed isn't going to be much help if it stops working
> because Adobe's moved on though.
> >> > cs4, the topic of this thread, hasn't been supported in years.
> >>
> >> Yet it will run *indefinitely* in contrast.
> >
> > only if you don't ever upgrade the system on which it's running.
>
> The point is if nothing on the system is changed, some people want the
> software on that system to run indefinitely without continual payments
> and without connecting to remote subscription servers.
for those that keep using an older version on older hardware, at some
point, that hardware will stop working and they'll be forced to
upgrade.
Jolly Roger
Apr 6, 2017, 12:13:52 PM4/6/17
to
On 2017-04-06, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ekn557...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>>> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of
>>>> Photoshop CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some
>>>> point support will drop for older operating systems and hardware.
>>>> And at some point in the future, if and when Adobe stops
>>>> supporting subscriptions for those older versions (or Adobe drops
>>>> them and moves on to better things), that software will just stop
>>>> working on those systems. My point is longevity of software
>>>> matters to some people for some use cases.
>>>
>>> i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than
>>> the one you're currently using.
>>>
>>> you can also keep an older version.
>>
>> Keeping it installed isn't going to be much help if it stops working
>> because Adobe's moved on though.
>
> yes it will.
How will it continue to work if it cannot contact subscription servers?
><jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>>> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of
>>>> Photoshop CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some
>>>> point support will drop for older operating systems and hardware.
>>>> And at some point in the future, if and when Adobe stops
>>>> supporting subscriptions for those older versions (or Adobe drops
>>>> them and moves on to better things), that software will just stop
>>>> working on those systems. My point is longevity of software
>>>> matters to some people for some use cases.
>>>
>>> i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than
>>> the one you're currently using.
>>>
>>> you can also keep an older version.
>>
>> Keeping it installed isn't going to be much help if it stops working
>> because Adobe's moved on though.
>
> yes it will.
[remaining argumentative tripe omitted]
nospam
Apr 6, 2017, 12:48:03 PM4/6/17
to
In article <ekn7ps...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
just checking for a paid account.
<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>>> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of
> >>>> Photoshop CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some
> >>>> point support will drop for older operating systems and hardware.
> >>>> And at some point in the future, if and when Adobe stops
> >>>> supporting subscriptions for those older versions (or Adobe drops
> >>>> them and moves on to better things), that software will just stop
> >>>> working on those systems. My point is longevity of software
> >>>> matters to some people for some use cases.
> >>>
> >>> i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than
> >>> the one you're currently using.
> >>>
> >>> you can also keep an older version.
> >>
> >> Keeping it installed isn't going to be much help if it stops working
> >> because Adobe's moved on though.
> >
> > yes it will.
>
> How will it continue to work if it cannot contact subscription servers?
older versions can ping the servers the same as newer versions. it's
> >>>> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of
> >>>> Photoshop CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some
> >>>> point support will drop for older operating systems and hardware.
> >>>> And at some point in the future, if and when Adobe stops
> >>>> supporting subscriptions for those older versions (or Adobe drops
> >>>> them and moves on to better things), that software will just stop
> >>>> working on those systems. My point is longevity of software
> >>>> matters to some people for some use cases.
> >>>
> >>> i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than
> >>> the one you're currently using.
> >>>
> >>> you can also keep an older version.
> >>
> >> Keeping it installed isn't going to be much help if it stops working
> >> because Adobe's moved on though.
> >
> > yes it will.
>
> How will it continue to work if it cannot contact subscription servers?
just checking for a paid account.
Jolly Roger
Apr 6, 2017, 3:11:31 PM4/6/17
to
On 2017-04-06, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
the software won't be able to ping those servers. Software is a moving
target, and that includes software running on Adobe's subscription
support servers.
Again, there is value in software that can run *indefinitely* (look up
the definition of that word if you are confused about it) without
constant payments and without repeatedly contacting subscription
servers. You subscription cheerleaders can argue about this all you
want, but nothing will change this fact.
dorayme
Apr 6, 2017, 7:51:07 PM4/6/17
to
In article <060420171143598671%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
for mortal man.
--
dorayme
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> for those that keep using an older version on older hardware, at some
> point, that hardware will stop working and they'll be forced to
> upgrade.
Depends on their age and how many "old" machines they have. At least
> for those that keep using an older version on older hardware, at some
> point, that hardware will stop working and they'll be forced to
> upgrade.
for mortal man.
--
dorayme
David B.
May 19, 2017, 10:54:06 AM5/19/17
to
On 4/5/2017 1:06 PM, Shadow wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:15:17 +0100, "David B."
> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
>>> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
>
>> We're not discussing 'nyms'
>
> Yes we are. It's a crime to access a PRIVATE server you've
> been BANNED on. Creating countless new nyms is proof you are aware you
> were BANNED.
> Read the BRITISH law. It's quite specific.
> []'s
>
Do you consider www.answers.microsoft.com to be a PRIVATE server?
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:15:17 +0100, "David B."
> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
>>> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
>
>> We're not discussing 'nyms'
>
> Yes we are. It's a crime to access a PRIVATE server you've
> been BANNED on. Creating countless new nyms is proof you are aware you
> were BANNED.
> Read the BRITISH law. It's quite specific.
> []'s
>
--
David B.
Shadow
May 19, 2017, 11:31:09 AM5/19/17
to
On Fri, 19 May 2017 15:54:03 +0100, "David B."
Any server you do not OWN is PRIVATE. It belongs to someone
else. It can have public access, but you must abide by their rules.
So of course you are a CRIMINAL for hacking it (if that's what
you are asking). You broke the law.
Drinking more recently ? What a stuuuupid question, even for
you.
[]'s
PS Why did you cross-post this to a Mac group ? STALKING there
too ? I also fixed the subject line, It contained a third party's
name, totally unrelated to your post, a big no-no on Usenet.
Say TY
<Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>On 4/5/2017 1:06 PM, Shadow wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:15:17 +0100, "David B."
>> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
>>>> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
>>
>>> We're not discussing 'nyms'
>>
>> Yes we are. It's a crime to access a PRIVATE server you've
>> been BANNED on. Creating countless new nyms is proof you are aware you
>> were BANNED.
>> Read the BRITISH law. It's quite specific.
>> []'s
>>
>
>Do you consider <STALKING_REMOVED> to be a PRIVATE server?
>On 4/5/2017 1:06 PM, Shadow wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:15:17 +0100, "David B."
>> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
>>>> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
>>
>>> We're not discussing 'nyms'
>>
>> Yes we are. It's a crime to access a PRIVATE server you've
>> been BANNED on. Creating countless new nyms is proof you are aware you
>> were BANNED.
>> Read the BRITISH law. It's quite specific.
>> []'s
>>
>
Any server you do not OWN is PRIVATE. It belongs to someone
else. It can have public access, but you must abide by their rules.
So of course you are a CRIMINAL for hacking it (if that's what
you are asking). You broke the law.
Drinking more recently ? What a stuuuupid question, even for
you.
[]'s
PS Why did you cross-post this to a Mac group ? STALKING there
too ? I also fixed the subject line, It contained a third party's
name, totally unrelated to your post, a big no-no on Usenet.
Say TY
Shadow
May 19, 2017, 1:37:13 PM5/19/17
to
Google, and it asked me to solve this "related" captcha:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/file/9832_captcha.gif
TIA
[]'s
PhillipJones
May 19, 2017, 6:56:33 PM5/19/17
to
such as office for Mac (Word PowerPoint, Excel One Note (don't use Outlook)
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjon...@comcast.net
http://phillipjones-cet.net/
David B.
May 20, 2017, 3:08:46 AM5/20/17
to
On 5/19/2017 11:56 PM, Phillip Jones wrote:
> David B. asked
>> Do you consider www.answers.microsoft.com to be a PRIVATE server?
>>
> Not hardly. It a Forum to give and receive replies to Microsoft products
> such as office for Mac (Word PowerPoint, Excel One Note (don't use Outlook)
Extract from a LinkedIn discussion:-
Prof John Walker FRSA Purveyor Dark Intelligence
So true - but it is the missing component - one only has to look at
*falsified Linkedin profiles* of people who, say claim 30 years in the
industry, and who have served in the RAF - taken in sadly but the people
who run Infosec UK, and other global security organisations - who do not
seem to care - so yes you are spot on.
David B asked ....
What percentage of LinkedIn profiles do you suspect are falsified?
This is ONE I believe to be false:- https://www.linkedin.com/in/pauladare/
Have you any way of checking?
Justin White asked ....
David B. Why do you believe that one to be false? After ten seconds of
investigating I found this.
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/profile/paul%20adare?type=forum&type=forum
David B. said ....
Can you ask why he participated in this thread?
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/WindowsDefenderATPPreview/thread/6a77429e-9a0c-4f41-a4a4-cb861b717224/#dfca1cd2-273f-43ef-969b-62b64139f616
On his Twitter page (@TheOtherPKIGuy) Paul claims that he is
self-employed. On his LinkedIn page, it says he runs a company
"Owner - Company Name: FYI TechKnowlogy Services" - I believe that to be
fictitious.
In the now deleted thread shown above, it was claimed that Paul Adare is
actually employed by Microsoft.
ALL the claims cannot be right! You should investigate www.IdentIt.ca -
if you use waybackmachine you'll discover that Mr Adare was one of the
two guys who set up the company. After the fiasco at the link above, the
web site has been taken down (or has it?!!!)
David B asked ....
Hello Justin - did you ask Mr Adare? Does he actually work for
Microsoft or for the company cited on his LinkedIn page?
Please read here:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjn1qy8d9om8qy6/Reply%20to%20Rob%20in%20Microsoft%20Answers%20%28JPG%29%202.jpg?dl=0
==
Do YOU know the truth Phillip?!!!
--
David B.
> David B. asked
>> Do you consider www.answers.microsoft.com to be a PRIVATE server?
>>
> Not hardly. It a Forum to give and receive replies to Microsoft products
> such as office for Mac (Word PowerPoint, Excel One Note (don't use Outlook)
Prof John Walker FRSA Purveyor Dark Intelligence
So true - but it is the missing component - one only has to look at
*falsified Linkedin profiles* of people who, say claim 30 years in the
industry, and who have served in the RAF - taken in sadly but the people
who run Infosec UK, and other global security organisations - who do not
seem to care - so yes you are spot on.
David B asked ....
What percentage of LinkedIn profiles do you suspect are falsified?
This is ONE I believe to be false:- https://www.linkedin.com/in/pauladare/
Have you any way of checking?
Justin White asked ....
David B. Why do you believe that one to be false? After ten seconds of
investigating I found this.
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/profile/paul%20adare?type=forum&type=forum
David B. said ....
Can you ask why he participated in this thread?
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/WindowsDefenderATPPreview/thread/6a77429e-9a0c-4f41-a4a4-cb861b717224/#dfca1cd2-273f-43ef-969b-62b64139f616
On his Twitter page (@TheOtherPKIGuy) Paul claims that he is
self-employed. On his LinkedIn page, it says he runs a company
"Owner - Company Name: FYI TechKnowlogy Services" - I believe that to be
fictitious.
In the now deleted thread shown above, it was claimed that Paul Adare is
actually employed by Microsoft.
ALL the claims cannot be right! You should investigate www.IdentIt.ca -
if you use waybackmachine you'll discover that Mr Adare was one of the
two guys who set up the company. After the fiasco at the link above, the
web site has been taken down (or has it?!!!)
David B asked ....
Hello Justin - did you ask Mr Adare? Does he actually work for
Microsoft or for the company cited on his LinkedIn page?
Please read here:-
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjn1qy8d9om8qy6/Reply%20to%20Rob%20in%20Microsoft%20Answers%20%28JPG%29%202.jpg?dl=0
==
Do YOU know the truth Phillip?!!!
--
David B.
David B.
May 20, 2017, 3:13:14 AM5/20/17
to
On 5/20/2017 8:08 AM, David B. added...
> On his Twitter page (@TheOtherPKIGuy) Paul claims that he is
> self-employed. On his LinkedIn page, it says he runs a company
> "Owner - Company Name: FYI TechKnowlogy Services" - I believe that to be
> fictitious.
Here's the link!
https://twitter.com/TheOtherPKIGuy
HTH
--
David B.
> On his Twitter page (@TheOtherPKIGuy) Paul claims that he is
> self-employed. On his LinkedIn page, it says he runs a company
> "Owner - Company Name: FYI TechKnowlogy Services" - I believe that to be
> fictitious.
https://twitter.com/TheOtherPKIGuy
HTH
--
David B.
Diesel
May 20, 2017, 10:03:37 AM5/20/17
to
PhillipJones <pjon...@comcast.net>
news:ofnt70$ht3$1...@news.albasani.net Fri, 19 May 2017 22:56:32 GMT in
Brooks has been able to initiate contact with you via usenet, expect
one or more emails by him asking how to do this or that. Leading
upto, how to get his 'revenge' on me for well, a war he started with
me that he had no hope in winning.
As that's his M.O. You've essentially responded to a stalker in a
friendly fashion, so, if he hasn't already reached out to you, he
will soon enough.
Case in point:
MID: <C87RA.739350$Mr1.5...@fx27.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149456200100
Good luck!
--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
news:ofnt70$ht3$1...@news.albasani.net Fri, 19 May 2017 22:56:32 GMT in
alt.2600, wrote:
> David B. wrote:
>> On 4/5/2017 1:06 PM, Shadow wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:15:17 +0100, "David B."
>>> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
>>>>> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
>>>
>>>> We're not discussing 'nyms'
>>>
>>> Yes we are. It's a crime to access a PRIVATE server you've
>>> been BANNED on. Creating countless new nyms is proof you are
>>> aware you were BANNED.
>>> Read the BRITISH law. It's quite specific.
>>> []'s
>>>
>>
>> Do you consider www.answers.microsoft.com to be a PRIVATE server?
>>
> Not hardly. It a Forum to give and receive replies to Microsoft
> products such as office for Mac (Word PowerPoint, Excel One Note
> (don't use Outlook)
>
Since you left your email addy in your signature block, and, David
> David B. wrote:
>> On 4/5/2017 1:06 PM, Shadow wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:15:17 +0100, "David B."
>>> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
>>>>> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
>>>
>>>> We're not discussing 'nyms'
>>>
>>> Yes we are. It's a crime to access a PRIVATE server you've
>>> been BANNED on. Creating countless new nyms is proof you are
>>> aware you were BANNED.
>>> Read the BRITISH law. It's quite specific.
>>> []'s
>>>
>>
>> Do you consider www.answers.microsoft.com to be a PRIVATE server?
>>
> Not hardly. It a Forum to give and receive replies to Microsoft
> products such as office for Mac (Word PowerPoint, Excel One Note
> (don't use Outlook)
>
Brooks has been able to initiate contact with you via usenet, expect
one or more emails by him asking how to do this or that. Leading
upto, how to get his 'revenge' on me for well, a war he started with
me that he had no hope in winning.
As that's his M.O. You've essentially responded to a stalker in a
friendly fashion, so, if he hasn't already reached out to you, he
will soon enough.
Case in point:
MID: <C87RA.739350$Mr1.5...@fx27.fr7>
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149456200100
Good luck!
--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.
Shadow
May 20, 2017, 11:44:51 AM5/20/17
to
On Sat, 20 May 2017 14:00:12 -0000 (UTC), Diesel <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:
>PhillipJones <pjon...@comcast.net>
>news:ofnt70$ht3$1...@news.albasani.net Fri, 19 May 2017 22:56:32 GMT in
>alt.2600, wrote:
>
>> David B. wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2017 1:06 PM, Shadow wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:15:17 +0100, "David B."
>>>> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
>>>>>> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
>>>>
>>>>> We're not discussing 'nyms'
>>>>
>>>> Yes we are. It's a crime to access a PRIVATE server you've
>>>> been BANNED on. Creating countless new nyms is proof you are
>>>> aware you were BANNED.
>>>> Read the BRITISH law. It's quite specific.
>>>> []'s
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you consider <A_PRIVATELY_OWNED_SERVER> to be a PRIVATE server?
he can't say we didn't warn him.
Though just the fact that he said a PRIVATE server was
"public" shows that he's either brain dead, yet another one of BD's
many socks or one of BD's fsck buddies..
wrote:
>PhillipJones <pjon...@comcast.net>
>news:ofnt70$ht3$1...@news.albasani.net Fri, 19 May 2017 22:56:32 GMT in
>alt.2600, wrote:
>
>> David B. wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2017 1:06 PM, Shadow wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:15:17 +0100, "David B."
>>>> <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/5/2017 12:05 PM, burfordTjustice claimed wrongly:-
>>>>>> Still does not equal the number of NYMs used by you.
>>>>
>>>>> We're not discussing 'nyms'
>>>>
>>>> Yes we are. It's a crime to access a PRIVATE server you've
>>>> been BANNED on. Creating countless new nyms is proof you are
>>>> aware you were BANNED.
>>>> Read the BRITISH law. It's quite specific.
>>>> []'s
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Not hardly. It a Forum to give and receive replies
>>
>
>> Not hardly. It a Forum to give and receive replies
>>
>
>Since you left your email addy in your signature block, and, David
>Brooks has been able to initiate contact with you via usenet, expect
>one or more emails by him asking how to do this or that. Leading
>upto, how to get his 'revenge' on me for well, a war he started with
>me that he had no hope in winning.
>
>As that's his M.O. You've essentially responded to a stalker in a
>friendly fashion, so, if he hasn't already reached out to you, he
>will soon enough.
>
>Case in point:
>MID: <C87RA.739350$Mr1.5...@fx27.fr7>
>http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149456200100
>
>Good luck!
If the guy BD is stalking gets arrested for helping him hack,
>Brooks has been able to initiate contact with you via usenet, expect
>one or more emails by him asking how to do this or that. Leading
>upto, how to get his 'revenge' on me for well, a war he started with
>me that he had no hope in winning.
>
>As that's his M.O. You've essentially responded to a stalker in a
>friendly fashion, so, if he hasn't already reached out to you, he
>will soon enough.
>
>Case in point:
>MID: <C87RA.739350$Mr1.5...@fx27.fr7>
>http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=149456200100
>
>Good luck!
he can't say we didn't warn him.
Though just the fact that he said a PRIVATE server was
"public" shows that he's either brain dead, yet another one of BD's
many socks or one of BD's fsck buddies..
David B.
May 20, 2017, 12:29:31 PM5/20/17
to
He is also a REAL Professional! http://www.phillipmjones.net/
--
David B.
Mike_Duffy
May 20, 2017, 6:21:38 PM5/20/17
to
On Sat, 20 May 2017 14:00:12 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:
> Since you left your email addy in your signature block, and, David
> Brooks has been able to initiate contact with you via usenet, expect
> one or more emails by him
With something like: "I should be most grateful if you would, in some way,
> Since you left your email addy in your signature block, and, David
> Brooks has been able to initiate contact with you via usenet, expect
> one or more emails by him
acknowledge receipt of this message" so that he can get your IP# to
facilitate his staulking.
Shadow
May 20, 2017, 9:01:35 PM5/20/17
to
On Sat, 20 May 2017 17:29:31 +0100, "David B."
<Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
><MY_TARGET>
> is also a REAL Professional! <CUT_PERSONAL_LINK>
Well, he's been warned.
<Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
><MY_TARGET>
> is also a REAL Professional! <CUT_PERSONAL_LINK>
Well, he's been warned.
burfordTjustice
May 21, 2017, 8:34:14 AM5/21/17
to
On Sat, 20 May 2017 17:29:31 +0100
"David B." <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> He is also a REAL Professional! http://www.phillipmjones.xxx
Unlike MVPs with web sites that are not?
"David B." <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> He is also a REAL Professional! http://www.phillipmjones.xxx
Unlike MVPs with web sites that are not?
Diesel
May 21, 2017, 9:07:46 AM5/21/17
to
Mike_Duffy <mqduf...@bell.net>
news:xnmx5i45luvx$.1l9ed9uwrzthe$.d...@40tude.net Sat, 20 May 2017
Heh, it's better than that. Here's what BD does to people that won't
help him stalk/hack other systems on his behalf and turn over their
user databases. He'll download what isn't his to keep a copy of,
modify it, and upload it to youtube. He somehow thinks this works as
a method of intimidation. The excessive alcohol consumption must
have done a number on his brain cells.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkcrTBG_M-Y
All because of this email correspondence between the two of us, where
you can clearly read for yourself, I wouldn't help him stalk or hack
others he wanted more information on. I was more than willing to
assist him in any malware issues he felt he had, or that he felt any
site had, but, not one single time would he/could he provide me a url
to examine for evidence of malware, or, collect a sample of such.
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bdemail1.zip
Anyone who hasn't already read the email archive should do so, to
familiarize themselves with what he really is. And anyone who doesn't
approve of his activities and would like to speak to him about it,
over the phone, via email, and/or in person, can easily do so by
viewing this picture:
http://picpaste.com/01bBZABL.jpg
Of course, visiting in person must wait until he returns from his
drunken binges and boating trips. He delayed contact with police
officers that wanted to interview him about an online threat with a
9mm pistol he claimed to have a legal right to have in his possession
against another posters kids. So, don't expect the coward to be home
during the summer time. Probably better to call ahead and/or email.
And if you do either, be sure you use a burner phone and/or
disposable email address, or, you'll be his next stalking victim.
It's also worth noting that the police officers who investigated the
complaint determined he had no such permits/permission of any sort to
have any firearm and he denied having one when they did finally catch
upto him.
So, he either lied to the other poster about the handgun, or, he lied
to the cops about having it. If he does have one, he doesn't have it
legally in his country, despite his claims to the contrary. So either
way you slice it, the result is the same. He's a liar and every bit
the piece of shit I've *always* warned others he was.
news:xnmx5i45luvx$.1l9ed9uwrzthe$.d...@40tude.net Sat, 20 May 2017
help him stalk/hack other systems on his behalf and turn over their
user databases. He'll download what isn't his to keep a copy of,
modify it, and upload it to youtube. He somehow thinks this works as
a method of intimidation. The excessive alcohol consumption must
have done a number on his brain cells.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkcrTBG_M-Y
All because of this email correspondence between the two of us, where
you can clearly read for yourself, I wouldn't help him stalk or hack
others he wanted more information on. I was more than willing to
assist him in any malware issues he felt he had, or that he felt any
site had, but, not one single time would he/could he provide me a url
to examine for evidence of malware, or, collect a sample of such.
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bdemail1.zip
Anyone who hasn't already read the email archive should do so, to
familiarize themselves with what he really is. And anyone who doesn't
approve of his activities and would like to speak to him about it,
over the phone, via email, and/or in person, can easily do so by
viewing this picture:
http://picpaste.com/01bBZABL.jpg
Of course, visiting in person must wait until he returns from his
drunken binges and boating trips. He delayed contact with police
officers that wanted to interview him about an online threat with a
9mm pistol he claimed to have a legal right to have in his possession
against another posters kids. So, don't expect the coward to be home
during the summer time. Probably better to call ahead and/or email.
And if you do either, be sure you use a burner phone and/or
disposable email address, or, you'll be his next stalking victim.
It's also worth noting that the police officers who investigated the
complaint determined he had no such permits/permission of any sort to
have any firearm and he denied having one when they did finally catch
upto him.
So, he either lied to the other poster about the handgun, or, he lied
to the cops about having it. If he does have one, he doesn't have it
legally in his country, despite his claims to the contrary. So either
way you slice it, the result is the same. He's a liar and every bit
the piece of shit I've *always* warned others he was.
Diesel
May 21, 2017, 9:07:46 AM5/21/17
to
"David B." <Dav...@nomail.afraid.org>
news:ofpqmu$jmk$1...@dont-email.me Sat, 20 May 2017 16:29:31 GMT in
I found your youtube channel with a further degraded copy of my video
that you copied from my personal website and altered without my
permission. You made it very easy when you posted a link in this
newsgroup. You did advise that one should read a comment you left; so I
did. And, when I clicked your name, there was your channel on youtube.
When you send a video to youtube, they recompress it for you; reducing
the video quality that much more. Since you already lost the audio
track and damaged the original video quality with your MAC, you didn't
leave youtube much to work with. The youtube version is more pixelated
than your copy, now. Good job, stalker!
I left you a comment on it, too. You're welcome to read it. It's the
first comment I've ever left on youtube, actually. I can only wonder
what reason you had for attempting to edit the video, though...Would
you like to share your reason with me?
While you're at it, would you like to share your reason for having
tried to recruit me to hack web forums for you in the first place,
David? You aren't the nice guy you want others to think of you as. You
abuse people and their things. And you solicit the help of others to
assist you in doing it, and, when they won't (like myself) you attack
them, and stalk them. Nobody need take my word for it, your own words
confirm it, Right here:
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bdemail1.zip
A complete, unedited copy of our entire email correspondence before you
decided to stalk me and try to place my family in harms way, because I
refused to do malicious things to others for your benefit.
Why would I give you access to the original video file when you've
abused the low grade copy you already have in such a manner, David?
It's obvious you aren't trustworthy. So, what possible benefit would it
provide me to explain how to unlock and unzip the original file for
you?
Anyone who hasn't already read the email archive should do so, to
familiarize themselves with how you really are. You can't hide what a
serious stalking, pile of shit you are.
The reason we (You and I) have a problem is directly because I
wouldn't do you a couple of favors which would have resulted in you
being able to stalk more people you have some issue with. That's
covered in the email archive freely available via the link above,
too. I'll gladly take whatever abuse you think you can send my way for
my refusal to help you cause strife for others who might not otherwise
be able to hold their own. I'll happily be the firewall on this one.
news:ofpqmu$jmk$1...@dont-email.me Sat, 20 May 2017 16:29:31 GMT in
alt.2600, wrote:
> Unlike *YOU*, Phillip is another one of life's 'good guys'! :-)
You aren't, though.
> Unlike *YOU*, Phillip is another one of life's 'good guys'! :-)
I found your youtube channel with a further degraded copy of my video
that you copied from my personal website and altered without my
permission. You made it very easy when you posted a link in this
newsgroup. You did advise that one should read a comment you left; so I
did. And, when I clicked your name, there was your channel on youtube.
When you send a video to youtube, they recompress it for you; reducing
the video quality that much more. Since you already lost the audio
track and damaged the original video quality with your MAC, you didn't
leave youtube much to work with. The youtube version is more pixelated
than your copy, now. Good job, stalker!
I left you a comment on it, too. You're welcome to read it. It's the
first comment I've ever left on youtube, actually. I can only wonder
what reason you had for attempting to edit the video, though...Would
you like to share your reason with me?
While you're at it, would you like to share your reason for having
tried to recruit me to hack web forums for you in the first place,
David? You aren't the nice guy you want others to think of you as. You
abuse people and their things. And you solicit the help of others to
assist you in doing it, and, when they won't (like myself) you attack
them, and stalk them. Nobody need take my word for it, your own words
confirm it, Right here:
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/bdemail1.zip
A complete, unedited copy of our entire email correspondence before you
decided to stalk me and try to place my family in harms way, because I
refused to do malicious things to others for your benefit.
Why would I give you access to the original video file when you've
abused the low grade copy you already have in such a manner, David?
It's obvious you aren't trustworthy. So, what possible benefit would it
provide me to explain how to unlock and unzip the original file for
you?
Anyone who hasn't already read the email archive should do so, to
serious stalking, pile of shit you are.
The reason we (You and I) have a problem is directly because I
wouldn't do you a couple of favors which would have resulted in you
being able to stalk more people you have some issue with. That's
covered in the email archive freely available via the link above,
too. I'll gladly take whatever abuse you think you can send my way for
my refusal to help you cause strife for others who might not otherwise
be able to hold their own. I'll happily be the firewall on this one.
burfordTjustice
May 21, 2017, 11:51:25 AM5/21/17
to
if you was ever near him you would beat him.
Then one day you posted you were with in walking distance of his home
in Devon.
Then you turned tail and went home without ever a knock on the door.
Pathetic little guy with a sumo wrestler mouth.
0 new messages