Just wonderin' :-)
BoaterDave
with good, honest advice/links?
TIA
David
DL
I dont believe MVP's would take to kindly to this label
Its a genuine site
"BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:u3oqOG3I...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Kerry Brown
of .bat files? There are a lot of them available for download from many
MVP's sites, along with .cmd. .reg, etc..
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2
"BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:u3oqOG3I...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
BoaterDave
I find it difficult to tell the good from the bad nowadays! :-(
At least Bonio's are a recommended and visible product (and loved by my dog!
<g>)
David
____________________________________
"DL" <address@invalid> wrote in message
news:%23C4eAO3...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Tom Willett
The MVPs know it's a valid site.
And so do countless others in the MS newsgroups who have used its resources
for years.
--
===
Tom Willett
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
===
"BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
BoaterDave
I think you already know the danger of '.bat' files to us mere mortals.
My real, 'in-the-flesh', ex 'script kiddie' hacker turned PC consultant has
told
me so face-to-face. I'd rather trust him than you, I'm afraid.
David
__________________________________________________
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:ucWLjI4...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
BoaterDave
I read at the bottom of that web page a note which says "Microsoft is in no
way affiliated with, nor offers endorsement of, this site". I didn't read
that far before (earlier this year) and don't quite understand why Microsoft
does *not* endorse a web site set up by those who purport to be MVP's, who
are (I thought) rather special (and trusted) individuals.
Perhaps someone else will explain why that should be.
David
_____________________________________________________________
"Tom Willett" <tomp...@mvps.invalid> wrote in message
news:ejEDyL5I...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Shenan Stanley
> I read at the bottom of that web page a note which says "Microsoft
> is in no way affiliated with, nor offers endorsement of, this
> site". I didn't read that far before (earlier this year) and don't
> quite understand why Microsoft does *not* endorse a web site set up
> by those who purport to be MVP's, who are (I thought) rather
> special (and trusted) individuals.
> Perhaps someone else will explain why that should be.
Liability.
Just because you trust someone doesn't mean you want to endorse and take
full responsibility for that individuals actions.
It's not like MVPs have any actual ties/responsibilities to Microsoft. We
do what we do because we want to. Microsoft decided to recognize this with
an award - most of us would continue to do what we do whether or not the
title MVP was there. After all - in order to get recognized - you had to do
the same thing for a while.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
BoaterDave
Now that you are here, is it your considered view that the web site I
mentioned is safe to use?
David
_____________________________________________
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eBHuIP7I...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
> Thank you, Shenan. I understand.
>
> Now that you are here, is it your considered view that the web site I
> mentioned is safe to use?
Yes, it's safe as in won't give you malware. For the most part the
information various MVPs post there is well tested. I can't vouch for every
single thing that's there because there's too much for me to read and keep
track of all of it. Fixes are always correct but may not be appropriate or
work in every situation because of the "other program or hardware"
complication. Advice is always knowledgeable but not everyone will always
agree with any particular piece. We are individuals and don't necessarily
agree with each other about everything. As with any advice, consider the
individual giving it and their reputation.
Note that many MVPs have their sites hosted elsewhere for various reasons.
--
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
http://www.fjsmjs.com
Answer in newsgroup. Don't send mail.
Shenan Stanley
> Can those here confirm that this is a 'genuine' - bonio-fido' <g> -
> web site with good, honest advice/links?
>
> http://mvps.org/
<snipped Rest>
BoaterDave wrote:
> Now that you are here, is it your considered view that the web site
> I mentioned is safe to use?
Yes.
It is mostly links to a bunch of other sites - but at least those running
these sites have been helping people on these newsgroups for some time and
you see much of their advice repeated in some form or another every day
here. I trust the site itself and most of the advice on it - and the only
reason I say most is because I always check out any advice before taking it
in multiple places - no matter who it is from. I just like to understand
things as much as possible, it's not even a trust issue in that way.
BoaterDave
I've spent hundreds of hours 'experimenting'over the last 12 months,
culminating with a discussion with a young man (mid 20's) who is employed in
a local computer shop. He is a self-confessed ex 'script kiddie' hacker who
has now reformed and spends most of his time helping others by repairing
PC's and ridding them of 'nasties'. He is real and not just a 'virtual'
entity. I believe what he tells me. Perhaps that is because he is getting
married soon and has introduced me to his fiance. :)
One thing he mentioned recently was '.bat' files. He was absolutely adamant
that, with only two exceptions, other such files indicate that a PC has been
compromised, often without the knowledge of the user. I have tried to
convince others of this, but none believe me. :(
I was concerned about the web site because of the utilisation of '.bat'
files
if one follows the use of a HOSTS file, here:
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
Anyway, thanks for the 'thumbs-up'! :)
David
_____________________________________________________
"BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23y75Mi8...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
gls858
it's the commands that it contains. A .bat is simply a series of commands.
If you want to see the contents of a .bat file simply right click and
select edit. If you or your so called "script kiddie" don't understand the
commands contained in the batch file I would suggest you find a real
computer programmer to explain to you what the file is intended to do.
Batch files are commonly used to perform redundant tasks on a schedule.
gls858
Kerry Brown
more harmful than any other executable file many times in other newsgroups.
He ignores everyone's advice and attempts to get unsuspecting computer users
to scan their computers for .bat files and delete any they find. He has
caused a lot of unnecessary worry by telling people they are infected and
urging them to do many different anti-malware scans. When the scans come up
empty he insists they are still infected and points them to yet another
online scanning engine. At best he is a very sophistcated troll. At worst he
is a very paranoid person who needs professional help. In any case he can be
safely ignored.
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2
"gls858" <gls...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23I3gzxE...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
BoaterDave
BoaterDave
in error. :(
Perhaps it was Divine intervention - I then saw the post from Kerry Brown.
Or, as he's known elsewhere, TechB.
What you couldn't know, gls858, is that my younger son, Nick, who would have
been 36 tomorrow, tragically collapsed and died almost 8 years ago. No cause
for his death was found. He was a computer guru, with a first class degree
in Physics, and worked for ICL. He could *always* answer my queries ........
and I miss him.
I appreciate *your* help. Thank you.
My basic understanding now is that, as a 'bat' file is not a 'virus' per se,
it would (probably) not be picked up by an anti-virus programme. However, I
suspect that if such a file was surepticiously placed on one's PC, it could
issue commands to make one's PC do just about anything, including being able
to make adjustments to, in my case, NIS 2006.
If I'm right about this (and I recognise that I may have got it wrong yet
again!) unless one specifically seeks out a suspicious 'bat' file, one's PC
could apparently be working normally whilst, at the same time, be acting as
a 'zombie' for unscrupulous persons unknown. (Perhaps that is what my
'script kiddie' meant - he's no academic, that's for sure!)
Referring to the post from KB, I'd just mention that he 'advises' on the N/g
to which I was lured (by email) following posts I made here with MS back in
February. I was highly suspicious then, and still feel that there may be
those with malicious intent residing there (perhaps using the PC's of other
newsgroup members as zombies too - just my theory!). I'm aware that some
'members' there scan these MS newsgroups - perhaps looking for other
vulnerable 'clients' - I could determine no other reason.
I didn't know what a 'Troll' was this time last year. All I've been trying
to do is identify just how the 'bad guys' wreak havoc on the 'Net, not
simply 'clean' my own machine.
FWIW (and I didn't know what that meant either, then! <g>)
David
______________________________________________________
"gls858" <gls...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23I3gzxE...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> It's not the fact that's it's a .bat file that makes it good or bad
gls858
> BoaterDave is a troll. He has been told that .bat files are not
> inherently more harmful than any other executable file many times in
> other newsgroups. He ignores everyone's advice and attempts to get
> unsuspecting computer users to scan their computers for .bat files and
> delete any they find. He has caused a lot of unnecessary worry by
> telling people they are infected and urging them to do many different
> anti-malware scans. When the scans come up empty he insists they are
> still infected and points them to yet another online scanning engine. At
> best he is a very sophistcated troll. At worst he is a very paranoid
> person who needs professional help. In any case he can be safely ignored.
>
I suspected that from what others had posted. Especially the part about
needing professional help :-)
gls858
Shenan Stanley
> My thanks to both Frank and Shenan. I appreciate your comments.
>
> I've spent hundreds of hours 'experimenting'over the last 12 months,
> culminating with a discussion with a young man (mid 20's) who is
> employed in a local computer shop. He is a self-confessed ex
> 'script kiddie' hacker who has now reformed and spends most of his
> time helping others by repairing PC's and ridding them of
> 'nasties'. He is real and not just a 'virtual' entity. I believe
> what he tells me. Perhaps that is because he is getting married
> soon and has introduced me to his fiance. :)
> One thing he mentioned recently was '.bat' files. He was absolutely
> adamant that, with only two exceptions, other such files indicate
> that a PC has been compromised, often without the knowledge of the
> user. I have tried to convince others of this, but none believe me.
> :(
> I was concerned about the web site because of the utilisation of
> '.bat' files
> if one follows the use of a HOSTS file, here:
> http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
>
> Anyway, thanks for the 'thumbs-up'! :)
Hmmmm...
I cannot say I agree that the mere presence of *.bat or *.cmd files (similar
in most aspects) denotes that the PC has been compromised. I still use
batch scripts and VBSscripts every day - literally.
A batch script alone cannot tell you if a machine has been compromised. The
contents of said batch script can, but just its prescence tells you little
to nothing. After all - just because my car is in the driveway doesn't mean
I am home. Neither do the lights on in the house.
In other words - a batch script is not 'just because it is there' scenarios.
=)
Yes - batch scripts can be used for bad things. So can a lot of other
files. Doesn't mean they are.
Ken Blake, MVP
> "BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:%23y75Mi8...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Thank you, Shenan. I understand.
>>
>> Now that you are here, is it your considered view that the web site I
>> mentioned is safe to use?
>
>
> Yes, it's safe as in won't give you malware. For the most part the
> information various MVPs post there is well tested. I can't vouch
> for every single thing that's there because there's too much for me
> to read and keep track of all of it. Fixes are always correct but
> may not be appropriate or work in every situation because of the
> "other program or hardware" complication. Advice is always
> knowledgeable but not everyone will always agree with any particular
> piece. We are individuals and don't necessarily agree with each
> other about everything. As with any advice, consider the individual
> giving it and their reputation.
To BoaterDave: I just wanted to echo Frank's very good advice above. MVPs
can almost always be trusted, but that doesn't mean that any one of us will
automatically agree with everything some other MVP says. We are individuals,
and although we may agree on lots of things, we are also likely to disagree
on others.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Ken Blake, MVP
> My thanks to both Frank and Shenan. I appreciate your comments.
>
> I've spent hundreds of hours 'experimenting'over the last 12 months,
> culminating with a discussion with a young man (mid 20's) who is
> employed in a local computer shop. He is a self-confessed ex 'script
> kiddie' hacker who has now reformed and spends most of his time
> helping others by repairing PC's and ridding them of 'nasties'. He is
> real and not just a 'virtual' entity. I believe what he tells me.
> Perhaps that is because he is getting married soon and has introduced
> me to his fiance. :)
> One thing he mentioned recently was '.bat' files. He was absolutely
> adamant that, with only two exceptions, other such files indicate
> that a PC has been compromised, often without the knowledge of the
> user. I have tried to convince others of this, but none believe me. :(
I certainly don't believe you. The statement is complete nonsense. Your
young man has no idea what he's talking about. A bat file is simply a text
file containing one or more commands. Although it's possible that such
commands *could* be mailicious, there's nothing about their being in a bat
file that makes them so, and most bat files by far are completely
innoucuous. I have many bat files on this computer--some written by me, some
by others--and none of them are malicious.
Michael D. Alligood
start with the basics: What is a virus? According to Microsoft, a
viruses are, "(Computer viruses are) software programs that are
deliberately designed to interfere with computer operation, record,
corrupt, or delete data, or spread themselves to other computers and
throughout the Internet." This includes *.bat files. So can *.bat files
be viruses? Of course. It is a possibility. However, *.bat files are old
technology (but that is still in use today). The probability of a *.bat
virus spreading on the internet is slim; at least one that is spreading
quickly in the wild. A batch file is a collection of commands; although
not as sophisticated as today's scripts.
I remember old batch files that would reboot your computer and format
your c:\ drive or worse fdisk the whole drive. To knock on wood, I have
not run across many viruses nowadays that do this. IMHO, I worry about
spyware 10x more than viruses.
I feel as if I have digressed, so I will stop now. :-) I hope that helps
--
Michael D. Alligood
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor
"BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:OPX5MnFJ...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
BoaterDave
Thank you for responding. Your comments were rather supportive of my theory.
I haven't (or so I thought!) intimated that *.bat files are spreading 'in
the wild', rather that I feel that they may be being utilised by (probably)
a small number of 'bad guys' who are hiding within a specific newsgroup, the
purpose of which is supposed to help others with their PC problems (*still*
no concrete proof, which is highly frustrating!). There are, though,
hundreds of users of the 'host' server, so many users may be compromised.
When I discussed the threat I received with our Police (once I had recovered
funds fraudulently taken from my bank account by PayPal last year) I
discovered just how massive Cybercrime has become. Discussion with their
Hi-Tech crime unit then led me to investigate further, and I discovered
findings by Sunbelt Software which, in turn, made me realise that no-one
really knows just *how* such crime is growing. So, perhaps in memory of my
son, I've done my best to identify how it *may* be being done (at least in
part).
I feel that I can take the matter little further on my own.
Thanks again.
David
PS You will find many posts I've made before if you 'Google' for BoaterDave,
but find out just who *I* am if you 'Google' for BoaterDaveTJ :)
____________________________________________________
"Michael D. Alligood" <mdall...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:uvPeWwFJ...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
BoaterDave
.............. but they *could* be? Please see my response to Michael.
David
_________________________________________________
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23WqE$rFJHH...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
BoaterDave
.............. so if they *could* be, would they be identified by an
anti-virus scan?
I think not. You may know different - I'm still willing to learn! :)
Please see my response to Michael. Thank you.
David
_________________________________________________
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:OkaabvFJ...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Although it's possible that such
> commands *could* be mailicious, there's nothing about their being in a bat
> file that makes them so, and most bat files by far are completely
> innoucuous.
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Shenan Stanley
> Thanks Shenan.
>
> .............. but they *could* be? Please see my response to
*.jpgs can have viruses.
*.doc files can contain macro viruses.
You can be infested with a LOT of malware just by visiting the wrong web
page.
I never said they could not be bad - matter of fact - I said they could be
bad. What I was disagreeing with was the assertion your young friend made
that you stated, "... One thing he mentioned recently was '.bat' files. He
was absolutely adamant that, with only two exceptions, other such files
indicate that a PC has been compromised, often without the knowledge of the
user. I have tried to convince others of this, but none believe me ..." <-
it's simply not true as stated. It does *not* indicate an infested/infected
machine at all - and in the majority of cases is 100% benign.
BoaterDave
busy with other things, so thanks)
Perhaps you didn't read my response to Michael where I said:-
"My basic understanding now is that, as a 'bat' file is not a 'virus' per
se,
it would (probably) not be picked up by an anti-virus programme. However, I
suspect that if such a file was surepticiously placed on one's PC, it could
issue commands to make one's PC do just about anything, including being able
to make adjustments to, in my case, NIS 2006.
If I'm right about this (and I recognise that I may have got it wrong yet
again!) unless one specifically seeks out a suspicious 'bat' file, one's PC
could apparently be working normally whilst, at the same time, be acting as
a 'zombie' for unscrupulous persons unknown. (Perhaps that is what my
'script kiddie' meant - he's no academic, that's for sure!)"
I DO understand what you have explained to me. Thank you again. :)
HTH
David
____________________________________________
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eupCOXJ...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Michael D. Alligood
heuristics scanning "is similar to signature scanning, except that
instead of looking for specific signatures, heuristic scanning looks for
certain instructions or commands within a program that are not found in
typical application programs. As a result, a heuristic engine is able to
detect potentially malicious functionality in new, previously
unexamined, malicious functionality such as the replication mechanism of
a virus, the distribution routine of a worm or the payload of a trojan."
(Markus Schmall).
So along with detecting viruses by using "virus signatures", AV programs
also look for "certain instructions or commands within a program that
are not found in typical application programs." Possibly detecting your
*.bat files. While there is no golden AV program that detect all
suspicious programs, files and scripts -- and I do not want to continue
this thread with the "Best AV program" on the market, it should perform
heuristic scans to help locate these suspicious files/programs.
I hope this clears things up.
--
Michael D. Alligood
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor
"BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:OB4bh8IJ...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
Ken Blake, MVP
> Thank you for your view, Ken.
>
> .............. so if they *could* be, would they be identified by an
> anti-virus scan?
>
> I think not. You may know different - I'm still willing to learn! :)
Others here have called you a troll. I don't know anything of your past
postings, so I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, unless or
until you convince me that you are trolling. You are close to convincing me
of that, but I thought I would invest one more message before being sure.
So here's the story:
It's likely that many kinds of malicious statements in a bat file would not
be caught by a an anti-virus program. There are many kinds of malicious
software, and the kind you might find in a bat file would not be a virus,
and might not be caught. Anti-virus software does not catch everything, and
if you rely solely on anti-virus osftware for protection for security, you
are kidding yourself.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I want to create a file that would
delete the contents of an important folder like c:\program files. I could
write a batch file to do this, I could create an exe file to do this, I
could create a file that masqueraded as a jpg file (or any other type) to do
this. Regardless of how I did it, a virus checker might not catch it.
The point is that all of the various ways I might write something to perform
this malicious act are equivalent. There's nothing special about the bat
file, and that particular kind of file is no more risky than any other type
of file.
Over and above the points made above, you said "One thing he mentioned
recently was '.bat' files. He was absolutely adamant that, with only two
exceptions, other such files indicate that a PC has been compromised, often
without the knowledge of the user. I have tried to convince others of this,
but none believe me. :("
Your young man's statement is *completely* false. There is risk in bat
files, as there is risk with any kind of files. With bat files, as with all
other files, you need to know what they are and where they came form before
you can trust them. The risk is not greater with bat files and the statement
that "with only two exceptions, other such files indicate that a PC has been
compromised" is complete and utter nonsense. If you are putting your trust
in someone who says that, you are very clearly trusting the wrong person. He
has no idea what he is talking about.
Feel free to disbelieve everything I, and everyone else here, has told you,
and trust your young man instead. It's entirely your choice.
--
Tom Thumb.
others wonder if you are an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all
doubt?
"BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:e3MQlX5I...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
> My thanks to both Frank and Shenan. I appreciate your comments.
>
> I've spent hundreds of hours 'experimenting'over the last 12 months,
> culminating with a discussion with a young man (mid 20's) who is employed
> in
> a local computer shop. He is a self-confessed ex 'script kiddie' hacker
> who
> has now reformed and spends most of his time helping others by repairing
> PC's and ridding them of 'nasties'. He is real and not just a 'virtual'
> entity. I believe what he tells me. Perhaps that is because he is getting
> married soon and has introduced me to his fiance. :)
>
> One thing he mentioned recently was '.bat' files. He was absolutely
> adamant
> that, with only two exceptions, other such files indicate that a PC has
> been
> compromised, often without the knowledge of the user. I have tried to
> convince others of this, but none believe me. :(
>
> I was concerned about the web site because of the utilisation of '.bat'
> files
> if one follows the use of a HOSTS file, here:
> http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
That particular site is one I will vouch for. The BAT files there are not
harmful and can be quite useful. They are also quite well known. If I were
to use them I would change the names, however, but to something I was sure I
could remember. The reason is that they are so well known that malware
might look for them and try to change them to do something nasty.
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
> Shenan - I appreciate you coming back to me yet again (I'm sure you must
> be busy with other things, so thanks)
>
> Perhaps you didn't read my response to Michael where I said:-
>
> "My basic understanding now is that, as a 'bat' file is not a 'virus' per
> se,
> it would (probably) not be picked up by an anti-virus programme. However,
> I
> suspect that if such a file was surepticiously placed on one's PC, it
> could
> issue commands to make one's PC do just about anything, including being
> able
> to make adjustments to, in my case, NIS 2006.
>
> If I'm right about this (and I recognise that I may have got it wrong yet
> again!) unless one specifically seeks out a suspicious 'bat' file, one's
> PC
> could apparently be working normally whilst, at the same time, be acting
> as
> a 'zombie' for unscrupulous persons unknown. (Perhaps that is what my
> 'script kiddie' meant - he's no academic, that's for sure!)"
A BAT file can't run by itself. You might as well say that EXE and DLL
files are suspicious. They could be placed on the computer by something
else and do something nasty when run. There is no way that they are
inherently dangerous and certainly are not as dangerous as SCR files, which
may be screen savers but also may be script files.
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
> Hello TechB - nice to see you here! :-)
>
> I think you already know the danger of '.bat' files to us mere mortals.
> My real, 'in-the-flesh', ex 'script kiddie' hacker turned PC consultant
> has told
> me so face-to-face. I'd rather trust him than you, I'm afraid.
Your 'script kiddie' is an ignorant fear monger. I have seen many good and
useful BAT files and only one or two malicious ones. The main reason I
don't use BAT files anymore is that it's too easy to forget exactly what
such a file does and thus forget how to do it manually. Since my main
business is helping people I want to be able to tell my customers over the
phone how to do things that I would have written a BAT file for if it was
for my own use only.
You also seem to be expressing a common prejudice that only young people can
"know" computers. That's ridiculous. Yes, a lot of older people are
computer illiterate, but so are an awful lot of young people. The young
people can be more dangerous in their advice just because they subscribe to
this prejudice and think they know a lot simply because they're young and
have learned a few tricks.
BoaterDave
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to help me.
Whilst I know that there are differing views, I'm now using NIS 2006 and
hope this will help protect my PC!
As I have personally not deliberately added any'bat' files to my PC, I have
deleted all but Autoexec.bat :)
David
______________________________________
"Michael D. Alligood" <mdall...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:eoI3Q8JJ...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
BoaterDave
I will relay the comments which you and others have made and see what his
response is!
Cheers,
David
_______________________________________
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:OZmwtfKJ...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Michael D. Alligood
NIS 2006, may I ask how the performance of your computer has been since
installation. And may I also inquiry as to the amount of RAM you have
installed. I generally stay away from the "security suite" programs. The
exception would be Windows Live One Care that I currently have installed
on my laptop -- I really am a fan of this product.
--
Michael D. Alligood
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor
"BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:O$XMMguJH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
Michael D. Alligood
--
Michael D. Alligood
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor
"BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:O$XMMguJH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
BoaterDave
In general terms, my PC has responded well to using NIS 2006.
I have just 384Mb RAM (low by today's standards!) And an AMD 1300Mz
processor.
Not too fussed, as I'll upgrade to a new PC with Vista once it's released
here in the UK next year.
I've used Windows Live OneCare too and feel it will be very useful to many.
David
_______________________________________
"Michael D. Alligood" <mdall...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Oi%23qwt8J...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Michael D. Alligood
And your PC is responding well?!? How much available RAM do you have
after startup?
--
Michael D. Alligood
MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
CIW Certified Instructor
"BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:#J4kTpcK...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
Boate...@hotmail.co.uk
My comment will be found at the bottom!
An updated bit of info!
Quote:
Not necessarily, no. This dummy virus doesn't actually cause any
damage to the system. However it does make changes to the registry
from the command line.
Now the one I wrote back in the days of Windows 95/98, did. It
rendered the hard drive un bootable. In other words, once the victim
restarted their computer it halted on a black screen with the words
"Missing operating system" as it deleted key boot files; io.sys,
msdos.sys and command.com.
The only recourse from that (should one be so lucky) is to boot from a
system diskette and "sys" the drive from the command line.
Issuing the command: sys C: would fix that by putting those files back
onto the hard drive.
I also had two files from the Windows directory being targeted as
well.. they were user.dat and user.da0. Which meant that any and all
programs that were installed would have to be reinstalled again since
the system's registry would be gone too.
A "dummy virus" is so named due to the fact there are no actual virus
code antivirus software could scan for. These were merely batch files
(files that use the .bat extension) that contained commands the
computer would recognize and execute.
If I really wanted to be devious I could use something like this in a
batch file....
@ECHO OFF
CD/
attrib -r -a -s -h ntldr
del ntldr
ECHO.
ECHO Please restart your system...
ECHO.
In the above example, regardless what directory that was ran from it
would go right to the root of the drive. At that point it would remove
the read only, archive, system and hidden attributes to ntldr then
delete the file without confirmation.
But that would render the system inoperable and display the "NTLDR
missing" message. My method makes things more interesting due to the
simple fact that I could use the command: net view \\ip.addy.goes.here
to look for the shared drive. Unless I knew the IP address was static.
Then once I found it issue the command net use * \\ip.addy.goes.here\C
to map the drive. It basically allows me to see the hard drive in My
Computer as though it were physically attached to my system by adding
another drive letter. Then I could do whatever I wanted.. copy
files\folders from their hard drive to mine or vice versa, move
files\folders around, delete files, rename files, etc.. and they would
never know.
**
I'm wondering if the author is correct in what he claims. Some guidance on this will be welcomed!
Dave
~BD~
'microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics' group!
Dave - "It is much better to be hated for what you are, than to be loved
for what you definitely are not." "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you."
Tim Meddick
If your query referred to the ability of a batch file to disrupt an
NT-based system - then my answer would have to be ; "only if such a
batch-file was executed by a user with administrator privileges (on XP
only - vista / W7 gives an extra warning asking if it was you who really
initiated some risky code) would it be able to remove the essential
boot-loader system-file "ntldr" - otherwise, normal limited users would be
protected from such dodgy batch-code by the default usage-rights of files
and folders that reside within the root of the system-drive."
Plus, if the batch-file (or any one of a number of "vulnerable" executable
file-types) was downloaded from the internet, systems from 2K onward give
an extra warning of possible risk on any user attempting to execute it for
the first time.
But you'd have to a bit mental in the first place to deliberately execute a
strange batch-file that you had not first investigated it's contents for
yourself - let alone leaving it to AV scanning!!...
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:RvudndGBlt2EvB7S...@bt.com...
> 'microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics' group!
>
> My comment will be found at the bottom!
>
>> On Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:16:36 AM UTC, Michael D. Alligood
>> wrote:
>>> You are running Windows XP, with NIS 2006 and only 384 megs of RAM???
>>> And your PC is responding well?!? How much available RAM do you have
>>> after startup?
>
~BD~
>
>> I'm wondering if the author is correct in what he claims. Some guidance
>> on this will be welcomed!
>
> work outside of the LAN.
"Then I could do whatever I wanted.. copy files\folders from their hard
drive to mine or vice versa, move files\folders around, delete files,
~BD~
>
> If your query referred to the ability of a batch file to disrupt an
> NT-based system - then my answer would have to be ; "only if such a
> batch-file was executed by a user with administrator privileges (on XP
> only - vista / W7 gives an extra warning asking if it was you who really
> initiated some risky code) would it be able to remove the essential
> boot-loader system-file "ntldr" - otherwise, normal limited users would
> be protected from such dodgy batch-code by the default usage-rights of
> files and folders that reside within the root of the system-drive."
>
> Plus, if the batch-file (or any one of a number of "vulnerable"
> executable file-types) was downloaded from the internet, systems from 2K
> onward give an extra warning of possible risk on any user attempting to
> execute it for the first time.
>
> But you'd have to a bit mental in the first place to deliberately
> execute a strange batch-file that you had not first investigated it's
> contents for yourself - let alone leaving it to AV scanning!!...
>
> ==
>
> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
I wonder how many folk using a computer with an XP operating system do
*not* operate with administrator privileges! ;-)
Tim Meddick
café, or anything, why do you assume stuff?!!...
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
news:4f835464....@wouldyoulikefrieswitdat.com...
> This just in to the microsoft.public.test.here news room. On Mon, 09
> Apr 2012 22:19:14 +0100 it was announced to all in a public briefing,
> ~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.org> made the following declaration and
> shocked the world when the following was announced:
>>G. Morgan wrote:
>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm wondering if the author is correct in what he claims. Some
>>>> guidance
>>>> on this will be welcomed!
>>>
>>> Which claim? I see a glaring reason why a remote session will not
>>> work outside of the LAN.
>>
>>
>>"Then I could do whatever I wanted.. copy files\folders from their hard
>>drive to mine or vice versa, move files\folders around, delete files,
>>rename files, etc.. *and they would never know*!"
>
> aren't you? You're just not willing to face the facts as I have
> carefully demonstrated/laid out for you in clear, easy to understand
> English.
>
> If you are *that* determined to prove/disprove what I have said, why
> don't you try it out locally yourself and find out just how simple it
> is..
>
> Then again you probably wouldn't be able to perform the task without
> someone remoting into your computer and doing it for you.
>
> I'd show you just how simple a procedure it is, complete with screen
> caps, pretty instructions, a YouTube video, pop-up books, PowerPoint
> presentations and a narrator but you STILL wouldn't get it. So it
> would be a complete waste of my time.
>
> So here.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gi1BpLhRsw
>
> And here.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ELtS0YWHc
>
> Pay attention, VERY CAREFULLY.. I understand that will be a difficult
> task for you.
>
> Again, as I have said previously (and others have as well), you are on
> a Macintosh computer NOT a PC. So all of the above information is
> completely irrelevant to you.
> --
> <insert blank stare here>
Tim Meddick
populate internet cafés and have not, as yet, been upgraded...
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
Eagle
--
Eagle
Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you’ll ever
regret.
Eagle
--
Eagle
Socialism:
Tax dollars at work for those who don't
Tim Meddick
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
news:jlvt5o$jr2$1...@dont-email.me...
Oldus Fartus
> You arrogant, pontificating a***hole - the guy could be using an
> internet café, or anything, why do you assume stuff?!!...
>
pontificating, nor assuming stuff.
HTH
--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus
FromTheRafters
> You arrogant, pontificating a***hole - the guy could be using an
> internet café, or anything, why do you assume stuff?!!...
although he is on a Mac now - he still has an XP machine to play with
the batfiles to his pleasure.
Unfortunately, whether or not something is possible *still* doesn't
answer the real question of was he or was he not attacked by his
perceived nemesis during the session with the private newsgroup.
Oldus Fartus
> You moronic pile of cow shit, little do you realize that BD has been
> asking this VERY same question and getting multiple answers not only
> from myself but MANY others. Both here and in alt.2600.
>
> Not to mention, I *know* for a fact that BD uses Macintrash because I
> have his fucking system tagged from NUMEROUS visits to my web site which
> I host locally from my own box.
>
> He is not satisfied with any answers he gets from me or anyone else and
> is doing nothing but chasing ghosts and trolling news groups to get his
> rocks off. He refuses not only to listen to ANY fucking thing said to
> him, but he refuses to read, comprehend ANYthing given to him no matter
> HOW many times it's been explained ad nauseum.
>
> So, therefore, kindly STFU, you ignorant, top-posting, whiny little
> bitch.
You pretty well have it covered there Sycho.
~BD~
> Hello TechB - nice to see you here! :-)
>
> I think you already know the danger of '.bat' files to us mere mortals.
> My real, 'in-the-flesh', ex 'script kiddie' hacker turned PC consultant has
> told
> me so face-to-face. I'd rather trust him than you, I'm afraid.
>
> __________________________________________________
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:ucWLjI4...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Trolling over here now David? Are you going to warn us all about the
>> dangers of .bat files? There are a lot of them available for download from
>> many MVP's sites, along with .cmd. .reg, etc..
>>
>> --
>> Kerry Brown
>> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
>> www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2
UPDATE!
++++++
Kerry has refused to be my Facebook friend! :-(
Well actually, it was his wife, formerly known as The Lady K.Dee, who
started the rot on Facebook!
He lied when he once said this:-
"BoaterDave is a troll. He has been told that .bat files are not
inherently more harmful than any other executable file many times in
other newsgroups. He ignores everyone's advice and attempts to get
unsuspecting computer users to scan their computers for .bat files and
delete any they find. He has caused a lot of unnecessary worry by
telling people they are infected and urging them to do many different
anti-malware scans. When the scans come up empty he insists they are
still infected and points them to yet another online scanning engine. At
best he is a very sophistcated troll. At worst he is a very paranoid
person who needs professional help. In any case he can be safely ignored."
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2
Ref: Message-ID: <#K3I#IFJHH...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>
~BD~
> Tim Meddick said of Sycho
<smile>)
Have you ever been to Annexcafe User2User to 'test the water' so to speak?
~BD~
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>
It seems that you /always/ take me seriously, Master Morgan! ;-)
As RonNNN has mentioned today, your drug taking will have dulled your
psyche for sure. Enjoy what little life you have left, in the best way
that you possibly can.
--
The only people who make a difference are the people who believe they can.
tail@tanghare.comp Eagle
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> Kerry has refused to be my Facebook friend! :-(
>>
>> That's because FB friends are usually reserved for um, friends.
>
> It seems that you /always/ take me seriously, Master Morgan! ;-)
>
> As RonNNN has mentioned today, your drug taking will have dulled your psyche
> for sure. Enjoy what little life you have left, in the best way that you
> possibly can.
takes to pronounce his name. Pay no attention to the little maggot, and
just use his hand to wipe your ass. Just be sure his fingers are tucked
in or you might get a surprise.
--
Eagle
My definition of social justice: those who refuse to work deserve to go
hungry.
~BD~
> ~BD~ explained on 10/19/2013 :
>> G. Morgan wrote:
>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kerry has refused to be my Facebook friend! :-(
>>>
>>> That's because FB friends are usually reserved for um, friends.
>>
>> It seems that you /always/ take me seriously, Master Morgan! ;-)
>>
>> As RonNNN has mentioned today, your drug taking will have dulled your
>> psyche for sure. Enjoy what little life you have left, in the best way
>> that you possibly can.
>
> Dave, what ronnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn says isn't worth the fart it
> takes to pronounce his name. Pay no attention to the little maggot, and
> just use his hand to wipe your ass. Just be sure his fingers are tucked
> in or you might get a surprise.
My ploy was to get G.Morgan to follow the link in the signature block of
Mr Kerry Brown. It no longer provides a route to the 'BBS forum' as it
used to:-
http://web.archive.org/web/20071205055227/http://www.vistahelp.ca/
I also note that *you* - one of Graham's closest on-line pals, have not
yet signed up on *his* new phpBB. Is that simply because you, like Jenn,
are simply too busy? If so, WILL you be registering as a 'member'?
Or do you think it just a trick to gain access to one's IP address?
Tell me Eagle, WHY does Graham choose to be unfriendly towards BD? Is
it, do you think, solely because of the drugs he takes - or is it
something else besides?
-
FromTheRafters
Ray is often wrong.
~BD~
Ray who?
Btw, Good Morning, FTR! :-)
~BD~
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>
> Maybe that's why you get negative responses from me, always a ploy with
> you - eh?
There's no ploy when you are honest and true, Graham! ;-)
> If I want DE's IP, I'll ask for it. No need to trick him.
So is your new BBS simply a trick to get *MY* IP address?
You did say a while back that you'd like to hack into my computer. I do
believe you need my IP address to do that. Is that correct?
My inclination is to trust you still. Am I right to do so, Graham?
<aside>
Is your back less painful after your recent cortisone injections?
If you don't wish to discuss here, maybe you could start a 'medical'
section on your phbBB forum and discuss there. Your call! :-)
-
tail@tanghare.comp Eagle
>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> My ploy
>>
>> Maybe that's why you get negative responses from me, always a ploy with
>> you - eh?
>
> There's no ploy when you are honest and true, Graham! ;-)
>
>> If I want DE's IP, I'll ask for it. No need to trick him.
>
> So is your new BBS simply a trick to get *MY* IP address?
>
> You did say a while back that you'd like to hack into my computer. I do
> believe you need my IP address to do that. Is that correct?
Trust Graham. He is one of the most honest people I've ever met on the
internet.
> My inclination is to trust you still. Am I right to do so, Graham?
>
> <aside>
>
> Is your back less painful after your recent cortisone injections?
>
> If you don't wish to discuss here, maybe you could start a 'medical' section
> on your phbBB forum and discuss there. Your call! :-)
>
> -
Eagle
Some people come into your life as blessings
Some come into your life as lessons.
~BD~
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> So is your new BBS simply a trick to get *MY* IP address?
>
I have absolutely no wish to upset the applecart of your phpBB
> I have no interest in hacking your computer.
Hello Graham
That's good to hear! :-)
How do you feel about helping me fix my daughter's Dell Inspiron 1525
laptop running Windows Vista?
It starts fine in Safe Mode (with networking - works too) and it now
starts in normal mode too - but freezes as soon as I try to do anything!
I can reset to factory condition, but I'm willing to have a shot at
fixing the current set up if that's possible.
D.
~BD~
> After serious thinking ~BD~ wrote :
>> G. Morgan wrote:
>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>> My ploy
>>>
>>> Maybe that's why you get negative responses from me, always a ploy with
>>> you - eh?
>>
>> There's no ploy when you are honest and true, Graham! ;-)
>>
>>> If I want DE's IP, I'll ask for it. No need to trick him.
>>
>> So is your new BBS simply a trick to get *MY* IP address?
>>
>> You did say a while back that you'd like to hack into my computer. I
>> do believe you need my IP address to do that. Is that correct?
>
> Dave,
> Trust Graham. He is one of the most honest people I've ever met on the
> internet.
Do you look deeply into his soul when you Skype with him? I think he
felt uncomfortable when looking directly into *my* eyes! ;-)
I've unblocked him from my Skype now, so he may get in touch again
should he so wish!
David
> Hello Michael,
>
> Thank you for responding. Your comments were rather supportive of my theory.
>
> I haven't (or so I thought!) intimated that *.bat files are spreading 'in
> the wild', rather that I feel that they may be being utilised by (probably)
> a small number of 'bad guys' who are hiding within a specific newsgroup, the
> purpose of which is supposed to help others with their PC problems (*still*
> no concrete proof, which is highly frustrating!). There are, though,
> hundreds of users of the 'host' server, so many users may be compromised.
>
> When I discussed the threat I received with our Police (once I had recovered
> funds fraudulently taken from my bank account by PayPal last year) I
> discovered just how massive Cybercrime has become. Discussion with their
> Hi-Tech crime unit then led me to investigate further, and I discovered
> findings by Sunbelt Software which, in turn, made me realise that no-one
> really knows just *how* such crime is growing. So, perhaps in memory of my
> son, I've done my best to identify how it *may* be being done (at least in
> part).
>
> I feel that I can take the matter little further on my own.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> David
>
> PS You will find many posts I've made before if you 'Google' for BoaterDave,
> but find out just who *I* am if you 'Google' for BoaterDaveTJ :)
> ____________________________________________________
>
> "Michael D. Alligood" <mdall...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:uvPeWwFJ...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> I guess I will join this thread and post my 2 cents in as well. Let us
>> start with the basics: What is a virus? According to Microsoft, a viruses
>> are, "(Computer viruses are) software programs that are deliberately
>> designed to interfere with computer operation, record, corrupt, or delete
>> data, or spread themselves to other computers and throughout the Internet."
>> This includes *.bat files. So can *.bat files be viruses? Of course. It is
>> a possibility. However, *.bat files are old technology (but that is still
>> in use today). The probability of a *.bat virus spreading on the internet
>> is slim; at least one that is spreading quickly in the wild. A batch file
>> is a collection of commands; although not as sophisticated as today's
>> scripts.
>>
>> I remember old batch files that would reboot your computer and format your
>> c:\ drive or worse fdisk the whole drive. To knock on wood, I have not run
>> across many viruses nowadays that do this. IMHO, I worry about spyware 10x
>> more than viruses.
>>
>> I feel as if I have digressed, so I will stop now. :-) I hope that helps
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael D. Alligood
>> MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
>> Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
>> CIW Certified Instructor
>>
>>
>>
>> "BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:OPX5MnFJ...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> Ooops! Sorry about that - I was deep in thought and sent the blank
>>> response
>>> in error. :(
>>>
>>> Perhaps it was Divine intervention - I then saw the post from Kerry
>>> Brown.
>>> Or, as he's known elsewhere, TechB.
>>>
>>> What you couldn't know, gls858, is that my younger son, Nick, who would
>>> have
>>> been 36 tomorrow, tragically collapsed and died almost 8 years ago. No
>>> cause
>>> for his death was found. He was a computer guru, with a first class
>>> degree
>>> in Physics, and worked for ICL. He could *always* answer my queries
>>> ........
>>> and I miss him.
>>>
>>> I appreciate *your* help. Thank you.
>>>
>>> My basic understanding now is that, as a 'bat' file is not a 'virus' per
>>> se,
>>> it would (probably) not be picked up by an anti-virus programme. However,
>>> I
>>> suspect that if such a file was surepticiously placed on one's PC, it
>>> could
>>> issue commands to make one's PC do just about anything, including being
>>> able
>>> to make adjustments to, in my case, NIS 2006.
>>>
>>> If I'm right about this (and I recognise that I may have got it wrong yet
>>> again!) unless one specifically seeks out a suspicious 'bat' file, one's
>>> PC
>>> could apparently be working normally whilst, at the same time, be acting
>>> as
>>> a 'zombie' for unscrupulous persons unknown. (Perhaps that is what my
>>> 'script kiddie' meant - he's no academic, that's for sure!)
>>>
>>> Referring to the post from KB, I'd just mention that he 'advises' on the
>>> N/g
>>> to which I was lured (by email) following posts I made here with MS back
>>> in
>>> February. I was highly suspicious then, and still feel that there may be
>>> those with malicious intent residing there (perhaps using the PC's of
>>> other
>>> newsgroup members as zombies too - just my theory!). I'm aware that some
>>> 'members' there scan these MS newsgroups - perhaps looking for other
>>> vulnerable 'clients' - I could determine no other reason.
>>>
>>> I didn't know what a 'Troll' was this time last year. All I've been
>>> trying
>>> to do is identify just how the 'bad guys' wreak havoc on the 'Net, not
>>> simply 'clean' my own machine.
>>>
>>> FWIW (and I didn't know what that meant either, then! <g>)
>>>
>>> David
>>> ______________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> "gls858" <gls...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23I3gzxE...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> It's not the fact that's it's a .bat file that makes it good or bad
>>>> it's the commands that it contains. A .bat is simply a series of
>>>> commands.
>>>> If you want to see the contents of a .bat file simply right click and
>>>> select edit. If you or your so called "script kiddie" don't understand
>>>> the
>>>> commands contained in the batch file I would suggest you find a real
>>>> computer programmer to explain to you what the file is intended to do.
>>>> Batch files are commonly used to perform redundant tasks on a schedule.
>>>>
>>>> gls858
There's a post from Kerry Brown there too!
<#K3I#IFJHH...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>
He lied!
Wolffan
(in article <KdgkG.300961$kO2.1...@fx20.iad>):
> On 20/12/2006 23:00, BoaterDave wrote:
>
> <#K3I#IFJHH...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>
>
> He lied!
replying to yourself, as ‘BoterDave is one of your several dozen nyms. Once
again you have provided evidence to support the position that you are a
lying, brain-damaged, alcohol-soaked, troll, as you are quoting _yourself_ as
if it were evidence to support yourself. It could be that you merely forgot
who ‘BoaterDave’ was/is, but that in itself would be evidence supporting
the contention that you’re a brain-damaged alcoholic. The fact that you
are, again, compelled to quote yourself in support of your inane, insane,
idiocy should have told you that you are in a distinct minority on the
subject. As you’re a brain-damaged fool, you failed to notice. As you’re
a brain-damaged fool you thought, erroneously, that no-one would check.
Assuming that what happens using the single surviving neuron in your
alcohol-soaked brain can be classified as ‘thought’, that is.
David
Here it is again.
On 20/12/2006 23:00, BoaterDave wrote:
>>
>> --
>> Michael D. Alligood
>> MCSA, MCDST, MCP, A+,
>> Network+, i-Net+, CIW Assoc.,
>> CIW Certified Instructor
>>
>>
>>
>> "BoaterDave" <Boate...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:OPX5MnFJ...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> Ooops! Sorry about that - I was deep in thought and sent the blank
>>> response
>>> in error.
>>>
Wolffan
> On 11/04/2020 13:02, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 11 Apr 2020, David wrote
> > (in article <KdgkG.300961$kO2.1...@fx20.iad>):
> >
> > > On 20/12/2006 23:00, BoaterDave wrote:
> > > [nonsense, deleted]
> > > There's a post from Kerry Brown there too!
> > >
> > > <#K3I#IFJHH...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>
> > >
> > > He lied!
> >
> > You have, again, dug up a necrothread, this time from 2006, and are, again,
> > replying to yourself, as ‘BoterDave is one of your several dozen nyms.
> > Once
> > again you have provided evidence to support the position that you are a
> > lying, brain-damaged, alcohol-soaked, troll, as you are quoting _yourself_
> > as
> > if it were evidence to support yourself. It could be that you merely forgot
> > who ‘BoaterDave’ was/is, but that in itself would be evidence supporting
> > the contention that you’re a brain-damaged alcoholic. The fact that you
> > are, again, compelled to quote yourself in support of your inane, insane,
> > idiocy should have told you that you are in a distinct minority on the
> > subject. As you’re a brain-damaged fool, you failed to notice. As you’re
> > a brain-damaged fool you thought, erroneously, that no-one would check.
> > Assuming that what happens using the single surviving neuron in your
> > alcohol-soaked brain can be classified as ‘thought’, that is.
>
> You appear to have snipped some detail, Woolfie!
you, quoting yourself, deleted again. It’s still you replying to your own
post from 2006 because you simply lack the ability to support your position.
Shadow
wrote:
>On 11/04/2020 13:02, Wolffan wrote:
>> On 11 Apr 2020, David wrote
>> (in article <KdgkG.300961$kO2.1...@fx20.iad>):
>>
>>> On 20/12/2006 23:00, BoaterDave wrote:
>>> [nonsense, deleted]
>>
>> replying to yourself, as ‘BoterDave is one of your several dozen nyms. Once
>> again you have provided evidence to support the position that you are a
>> lying, brain-damaged, alcohol-soaked, troll, as you are quoting _yourself_ as
>> if it were evidence to support yourself. It could be that you merely forgot
>> who ‘BoaterDave’ was/is, but that in itself would be evidence supporting
>> the contention that you’re a brain-damaged alcoholic. The fact that you
>> are, again, compelled to quote yourself in support of your inane, insane,
>> idiocy should have told you that you are in a distinct minority on the
>> subject. As you’re a brain-damaged fool, you failed to notice. As you’re
>> a brain-damaged fool you thought, erroneously, that no-one would check.
>> Assuming that what happens using the single surviving neuron in your
>> alcohol-soaked brain can be classified as ‘thought’, that is.
>
>You appear to have snipped some detail,
The rest he left intact.
Try to keep acf a family safe group.
How's you fath, I mean mother?
Adhering to social distancing? Great!!!
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
David
> Not to mention, I *know* for a fact that BD uses Macintrash because I
> have his fucking system tagged from NUMEROUS visits to my web site
> which I host locally from my own box.
Please provide the URL - or URI or URN as some prefer.
Wolffan
(in article <hXUlG.58770$yo4....@fx48.iad>):
> On 10/04/2012 03:11, Sycho wrote:
> > Not to mention, I *know* for a fact that BD uses Macintrash because I
> > have his fucking system tagged from NUMEROUS visits to my web site
> > which I host locally from my own box.
>
> Which website might this be?
really interested, you’d have replied then. instead, by zombifing yet
another necrothread, you just gave more evidence to support the position that
you’re an insane brain-damaged stalking troll.
>
>
> Please provide the URL - or URI or URN as some prefer.
The poster in question may not be posting here anymore!
David
question:-
=
This just in to the microsoft.public.test.here news room. On Tue, 10
Apr 2012 00:46:26 +0100 it was announced to all in a public briefing,
"Tim Meddick" <timme...@o2.co.uk> made the following declaration and
shocked the world when the following was announced:
> You arrogant, pontificating a***hole - the guy could be using an
internet
> café, or anything, why do you assume stuff?!!...
asking this VERY same question and getting multiple answers not only
from myself but MANY others. Both here and in alt.2600.
have his fucking system tagged from NUMEROUS visits to my web site
which I host locally from my own box.
and is doing nothing but chasing ghosts and trolling news groups to
get his rocks off. He refuses not only to listen to ANY fucking thing
said to him, but he refuses to read, comprehend ANYthing given to him
no matter HOW many times it's been explained ad nauseum.
So, therefore, kindly STFU, you ignorant, top-posting, whiny little
bitch.
I would have been your daddy but I didn't have change for a five!
=
My informant tells me that, like Shadow, he was involved in nefarious
actions long ago!
Picard to Enterprise
> On 10/04/2012 03:11, Sycho wrote:
>> Not to mention, I *know* for a fact that BD uses Macintrash because I
>> have his fucking system tagged from NUMEROUS visits to my web site
>
> My mammy also gimme good head.
>
>
Wolffan
> On 16/04/2020 13:57, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 16 Apr 2020, David wrote
> > (in article <hXUlG.58770$yo4....@fx48.iad>):
> >
> > > On 10/04/2012 03:11, Sycho wrote:
> > > > Not to mention, I *know* for a fact that BD uses Macintrash because I
> > > > have his fucking system tagged from NUMEROUS visits to my web site
> > > > which I host locally from my own box.
> > >
> > > Which website might this be?
> >
> > one that you went to numerous times in 2012... eight years ago. If you were
> > really interested, you’d have replied then. instead, by zombifing yet
> > another necrothread, you just gave more evidence to support the position
> > that
> > you’re an insane brain-damaged stalking troll.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please provide the URL - or URI or URN as some prefer.
> > no-one has to do anything you want. and, besides, it’s been EIGHT YEARS.
> > The poster in question may not be posting here anymore!
>
> I DID reply then, but this is an example of the make-up of the man in
> question:-
idiot.