Re: What's the best way to MOVE an app to where it belongs, after it has already been installed?

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:07:29 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

> See if this does what you need:
>
> <https://www.howtogeek.com/howto/16226/complete-guide-to-symbolic-links-symlinks-on-windows-or-linux/>
> <https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-take-advantage-of-symbolic-links-in-window-10/>

Hi Char Jackson,

I don't ask questions that are easy to solve.
Only experts can answer my questions.
And even experts will have difficulty solving the questions below.

*I wouldn't ask this - if the answer was found ANYWHERE on the net!*

Thanks for being purposefully helpful in trying to answer what is,
admittedly, a question that only experts can possibly answer directly.

I apologize that I didn't make it clearin the OP that I want to MOVE
the installation, much like we did in the olden days with COA and COA32.

I'm hoping fellows who know tons more than I do, like Paul, or JP Gilliver,
can help advise how to MOVE an installation.

To your point, I'm aware of links, having cut my teeth on operating systems
that predate Windows by, oh, I don't know, a decade or more, most of which
extensively used links (aka shortcuts).

If links solved the problem, then the problem would only be cosmetic, which
it's not. The problem is one of organization, backup, consistency, etc.

Only a very experienced Windows user will be able to *improve* upon my
solution, but I don't ask easy questions, now do I?

People post like crazy to my threads, but almost none of those posts,
unless they come from the likes of people like Paul, actually answer the
question posed.

To always ensure value added to every problem set, here's my current
solution, for the benefit of the tribal knowledge of this group, and to
stimulate people to suggest improvements in the process.

NOTE THIS IS TESTED ONLY TWICE SO IT NEEDS MORE TESTING!
****************************************************************************
How to create a full offline Epic installer & put Epic where it belongs

Note: The canonical site for Epic software only provides the stub.
Note: The Epic installer does not ask where it should go.
Note: The Epic installer does not default to Program Files.
Note: Portable apps are harder to make the default in Windows 10.

Q: What Windows magic happens during reboot (which allows default sets)?
Q: What Windows magic will put Epic in the app uninstall menus?
****************************************************************************
Note: If you previously created the offline Epic installer, skip to step 6.

Strategy:
Always archive full offline installers & always control your system!

Tactic:
a. Create a full offline installer for Epic, and,
b. Install Epic where I want Epic to go.
c. Make this moved Epic the default web browser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Download the Epic installer stub executable named "epicsetup.exe":
https://cdn.epicbrowser.com/epicsetup.exe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Run the epicsetup.exe stub (it will not ask questions!!!!!!):

It will first download the full installer into this directory tree:
"%LOCALAPPDATA%\Epic Privacy Browser\"

And then it will install the Epic executable here:
"%LOCALAPPDATA%\Epic Privacy Browser\Application\epic.exe"

Make a note of the properties of the desktop shortcut:
Target: "C:\Users\.\AppData\Local\Epic Privacy Browser\Application\epic.exe"
Startin: "C:\Users\.\AppData\Local\Epic Privacy Browser\Application"

Warning: Once you uninstall Epic, you lose the installer so first
copy & zip it up first!
"%LOCALAPPDATA%\Epic Privacy Browser\Installer\"

Unfortunately, at this point, Epic is installed in the wrong place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Make an archive of the full download of Epic before uninstalling Epic!

Before you uninstall Epic, you must COPY the "Installer" directory
so that you can put it in a safe place, as the uninstallation process
will delete the original.

Copy (and zip if you like) this offline "Installer" directory
to the location that you normally store all your software installers.

Hint: It is a good idea to rename your offline installer archive, e.g.,
move chrome.7z epic_offline_installer.7z

"%LOCALAPPDATA%\Epic Privacy Browser\
Application\62.0.3202.94\Installer\{setup.exe,chrome.7z} (168MB)

Note that there are three major components in this directory:
a. The installed "Application" <== we will use this
b. The offline "Installer" <== we will use this
c. The stub installer <== will will not use this
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Completely uninstall Epic using any normal method you like.

Uninstalling deletes files in "%LOCALAPPDATA%\Epic Privacy Browser\"

When you run Epic, it creates this folder, which you should delete:
"%LOCALAPPDATA%\Epic Privacy Browser\User Data\"

Note: Completely uninstalling an app is sometimes multiple steps which
this note doesn't go into as it's not critical to the overall process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Now create the offline installer from the archive you made in step 3.

Working on your copy, extract the chrome.7z file.
This will create a "chrome" directory, which is the offline installer.

Hint: Rename the directory to someting more meaningful.
For example: chrome.7z extracts to a directory named "chrome".
For example: epic.7z extracts to a directory named "epic".
etc.
If you keep the name, what you'll see are these two objects:
.\chrome\Chrome-bin\epic.exe (867KB)
.\chrome\Chrome-bin\62.0.3202.94\(stuff)

Note: A good extraction program is http://7-zip.org/download.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Note that most people will be satisfied with the offline installer.

For this note, DO NOT EXECUTE THAT INSTALLER!

If you execute the installer, it will install Epic but it will NOT
ask you where you want to put it.

So you've solved only the creation of a full offline installer issue.
You still need to MOVE Epic to where you want it to go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Move the extracted folder into your end result installation hierarchy:

Rename the "Chrome-bin" directory to "epic" & move it where you want.

For example (where your particular location is up to you):
mkdir c:\app\browser\http\ch_based\
move Chrome-bin c:\app\browser\http\ch_based\epic\

Note: Use whatever directory structure makes sense to you.

Notice you've taken care of the files, but not the registry entries.
(For example, Windows won't yet know to make Epic the default browser.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Now create the requisite menu entries for the 3 Windows 10 native menus:

Please see the separate tutorial on creating fantastically efficient
consistent well organized menus with a click of the SendTo button.

a. Heterodox Start Menu (Start > e > epic)
b. Orthodox Start Menu (Start > browser > http > ch_based > epic)
c. Cascade Start Menu (Taskbar > browser > http > ch_based > epic)

Make a shortcut to the epic.exe in that directory.
Target = C:\app\browser\http\ch_based\epic\epic.exe
Startin = C:\app\bro"%LOCALAPPDATA%\Epic Privacy Browser\wser\http\ch_based\epic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Reboot the Windows 10 PC as there are registry changes to be made.

This is magic, to me, at the moment.

Interestingly, if you do not reboot, you will see a gray screen when
you run Epic and the menus won't work and it won't connect to the net.
I tried it twice, on two different machines, and, amazingly, the same
oddity happend in both cases. There's something magical in a reboot.
(If you know why a reboot solves this registry problem, let me know!)

After rebooting, the Epic browser will have a white background and
it will connect to the net just fine.

It's magic.
Note: A look with Total Uninstall, Zsoft, and Revo proves plenty of
registry entries get added, seemingly by magic, with that one reboot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. After rebooting, start Epic from the shortcut you created.

When you start Epic, it will show a blue button to "Set as default".

Clicking that "Set as default" button opens Win10 default settings
where Epic will be one of your choices (after the reboot).
"%LOCALAPPDATA%\Epic Privacy Browser\

Note that you an access those same default setup menus here:
Start >Settings >Apps >Default apps >Web browser=Epic Privacy Browser
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Test that Epic is now your default web browser.

a. Create an empty file with an html extension (e.g., "foo.html").
b. The file icon should immediately become the Epic icon.
c. Doubleclicking on that html file should bring up the Epic browser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. UNINSTALLING EPIC:
Using this method of putting Epic where it belongs, Epic won't show up
as being installed in the Win10 add-remove-programs applets.

QUESTION: If you know how to add Epic to the installed-programs list
please let me know as that's part of creating a far
better Windows experiences.

Start > Settings > Apps > Apps & features >

This is suppsed to work, but it only deleted my shortcuts:
epic.exe -uninstall

Where, when you run that command, up pops a window asking:
Uninstall Epic Privacy Browser
Are you sure you want to uninstall Epic Privacy Browser?
[_]Also delete your browsing data?
[Uninstall] [Cancel]
But that only deletes the shortcuts; not the files.

Interestingly, the Zsoft Uninstaller did not uninstall Epic.

I was able to delete Epic using Revo Uninstaller in "Hunter Mode".
The Revo Uninstaller found the registry entries and removd them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, this note improves our knowledge on how to create an offline
Epic installer, how to move it to where it belongs, how to make registry
changes to allow that to be the default browser.

Questions remain which will require a Windows 10 expert to resolve!
Q: What Windows magic happens during reboot (which allows default sets)?
Q: What Windows magic will put Epic in the app uninstall menus?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[R.Wieser]

Arlen,

> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:07:29 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:

Not in this, the XP newsgroup.

1) why did you chose to add the XP newsgroup to it ? {1}
2) why didn't you add that reason to the top of your reply ?
3) Where is the reference to the origional/initial messages newsgroup (and,
in case you changed the subjectline, it too)?

{1} The differences between W10 and XP are big, and answers for the former
might well not work for the latter, and vice-verse. By accepting
suggestions for both in a single thread you are just making your work much
harder, and in turn ours too.

> I don't ask questions that are easy to solve.
> Only experts can answer my questions.

In this case you are asking a question thats impossible to solve, and you
know it.

Tell me, what is the _standard method_ used by *all* sofware to refer to
their installation/data/other directories as well as any other configuration
files/data, and where do *all* software store that info ?

Or, in the reverse:

Can you imagine/do you know of the existance of a piece of software that
uses a "non-standard" way to handle the above references ?

If the answer to either the first is "there is none" or the answer to the
second "yes" than you will have to concede that your question is
unanswerable. (no "one method fits all" available).

I'm not an expert in any sense of the word, but the above looks like a
no-brainer to me. :-)

I get the strong feeling that your"expert" is just your way to refer to some
mythological being which is supposed to bend this universums rules to give
you what you want.

And please, don't tell me you did not even consider the above non-existance
of standarisation of the storage of such configuration data ... On the
other hand, if you did you would not have asked your above question. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
There are several programs available which sole purpose is to convert
standard windows programs into portable ones. They sometimes work, and
sometimes don't. Often they come with a "will work on" program list. Take
a wild guess why.

[Char Jackson]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:38:22 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
<arlen...@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:07:29 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
>
>> See if this does what you need:
>>
>> <https://www.howtogeek.com/howto/16226/complete-guide-to-symbolic-links-symlinks-on-windows-or-linux/>
>> <https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-to-take-advantage-of-symbolic-links-in-window-10/>
>
>Hi Char Jackson,

You're still having trouble with your chit-chat model.

>I don't ask questions that are easy to solve.
>Only experts can answer my questions.

*blush* Flattery now?

Anyway, you're welcome. I'm glad to have found a solution that was both
easy and obvious.

[R.Wieser]

?? Good Guy ??,

> Because he wrongly believes that he has a better chance of
> finding young boys in that group!!!!!!!

Trolling is one thing.

Accusing someone of being/doing something which can, especially in the
current climate regarding it, cause someone to get in trouble with the
authorities is something quite different. As in, not funny at all.

> He keeps changing his nym and he is using OpenVPN to
> circumvent any "intrusion" by the authorities.

There are other reasons to do that, with one of them what he explained to
us, being that he does not want to be(come) a number on some data
aggregator-and-sellers lists.

You might think that that is rather overdone and therefore not believe it,
but do you have any *proof* that that isn't the reason (and ofcourse proof
that yours is the real other one) ? If not ...

> However, he is mistaken. The authorities have better tools
> to snare him.

Yes, I heard those stories too. But as they are not known for telling us
anything about them all we, and you, can do is guess.

So, although I can understand that you do not like Arlen (or whatever his
real name is), you still should not be making wild accusations. They might
even come back to bite you in the butt (slander and such - maybe even one of
those new online revenge this-and-that laws).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser




"?? Good Guy ??" <hello...@example.com> wrote in message
news:ph889j$h1b$1...@news.albasani.net...

> On 30/06/2018 09:55, R.Wieser wrote:
>> Not in this, the XP newsgroup.
>>
>> 1) why did you chose to add the XP newsgroup to it ? {1}
>

> Because he wrongly believes that he has a better chance of finding young
> boys in that group!!!!!!! He is a known pedo and the authorities are
> watching him. He keeps changing his nym and he is using OpenVPN to
> circumvent any "intrusion" by the authorities. However, he is mistaken.
> The authorities have better tools to snare him.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /--- This email has been checked for viruses by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows Defender software.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //https://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/comprehensive-security/
>
>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> With over 950 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
> satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.
>

[😉 Good Guy 😉]

On 30/06/2018 19:52, R.Wieser wrote:

Accusing someone of being/doing something which can, especially in the 
current climate regarding it, cause someone to get in trouble with the 
authorities is something quite different.  

I posted that so that other pedos like yourself can come out of the closet and surprisingly it worked!!.  You guys are running a racket of abusing young boys and sooner the authorities come after you lot the better it would be for the innocent kids.

[Frank Slootweg]

R.Wieser <add...@not.available> wrote:
> ?? Good Guy ??,
[...]

> > He keeps changing his nym and he is using OpenVPN to
> > circumvent any "intrusion" by the authorities.
>
> There are other reasons to do that, with one of them what he explained to
> us, being that he does not want to be(come) a number on some data
> aggregator-and-sellers lists.

It has been mentioned many times that 1) there is no indication - let
alone proof - that such 'aggregators' [1] actually exist and 2) that the
very *way* he fakes/forges his headers makes it *trivial* for such
'aggregators' to pinpoint his postings.

But he refuses to accept reality/facts and continues his paranoia.

[1] Of course there are address-harvesters, but they only harvest email
addresses and then mainly only from the From: header (because that's in
the [X]OVER data. I.e that's not what our resident nymshifter (aka Mr.
EMAK) is talking about.

[R.Wieser]

?? Good Guy ??,

> I posted that so that other pedos like yourself can come
> out of the closet and surprisingly it worked!!.

:-) Try again. You post something - blackballing someone else - addressed
to me, and you crow some kind of victory because I wrote a response to you ?
Really ?

You really stink at trolling.

Goodbye.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[R.Wieser]

Frank Slootweg,

> It has been mentioned many times that 1) there is no indication -
> let alone proof - that such 'aggregators' [1] actually exist

...

> [1] Of course there are address-harvesters, but they only harvest
> email addresses

How many of those companies which actually do some sort of usenet scraping
have you visited ? If none, how do you know that nothing of the sort Arlen
is afraid of happens ? (yes, I know that its rather blunt.. My apologies)

> I.e that's not what our resident nymshifter (aka Mr. EMAK) is talking
> about.

Nope. He seems to be afraid that all of his posts will be aggregated, and
anything in them, even when posted many years ago, could be used against him
at some future point.

The "normal" us ignore that possibility, because we all think that there is
no reason for anyone to put a searchbeam on us. Who are we anyway that
anyone would feel the need to put us under it ?

But thats not the point. Just as with being afraid of spiders will not
stop even though you know that in your nick of the world there are
absolutily no spiders that can harm you, knowing that the chance that that
spotlight will single you out is smaller than winning a 5mil jackpot, the
nagging(? or just full-blown?) fear will never subside.

> 2) that the very *way* he fakes/forges his headers makes it
> *trivial* for such 'aggregators' to pinpoint his postings.

Could you show how thats done ? I would certainly like to know how I can
match a new nym to an already existing one. The last time I tried to
compare the headers of two messages that way I could not find anything even
remotely matching.

But there is the question why someone would need to fake/forge headers, as
you can use different newsgroup hosts. There seem to be a number around for
which only need to register (no credentials checked, just that the provided
email address exists - even for just a few minutes)...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

As chances will have it, it only popped into my mind after I'd shut-down my
'puter to go sleep:

> It has been mentioned many times that 1) there is no indication -
> let alone proof - that such 'aggregators' [1] actually exist

It has been staring us in the face: What about gmail ? That certainly is
an aggregation of email messages, currently going back *at least* a decade.

Just a few weeks ago someone posted a reply to a 13-year old message. To
which someone else responded that the person posting that message had not
been active in that newsgroup for over 7 years ...

So, both proof of aggregation - gmail, duh - and that its easily
searchable - the extraction of "not been active in 7 years" info.

I don't know about you, but if I would be worried about stuff I said in the
past at some time in the future possibly coming back to hound me than gmail
would be a good candidate to fuel it.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[John Doe]

"R.Wieser" <add...@not.available> wrote:

> Arlen,

>
>> Char Jackson wrote:
>
> Not in this, the XP newsgroup.
>
> 1) why did you chose to add the XP newsgroup to it ?

Maybe because it's freaking crazy.

Why did you include introductions without quoting any text?

[Frank Slootweg]

R.Wieser <add...@not.available> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg,
>
> > It has been mentioned many times that 1) there is no indication -
> > let alone proof - that such 'aggregators' [1] actually exist
> ...
> > [1] Of course there are address-harvesters, but they only harvest
> > email addresses
>
> How many of those companies which actually do some sort of usenet scraping
> have you visited ? If none, how do you know that nothing of the sort Arlen
> is afraid of happens ? (yes, I know that its rather blunt.. My apologies)

Of course one can't prove a negative, but - as I said - there is no
indication that these Usenet aggregators actually exist. For *other*
media, such as Gmail which you mentioned in your other posts, Google,
Facebook, Twitter, etc., such aggregators of course *do* exist, but
we're talking about Usenet, not those other media.

> > I.e that's not what our resident nymshifter (aka Mr. EMAK) is talking
> > about.
>
> Nope. He seems to be afraid that all of his posts will be aggregated, and
> anything in them, even when posted many years ago, could be used against him
> at some future point.

Not quite (AFAIK). He's afraid that his *identity* will be found out.
Whether that found identity will be used against him is a subsequent
concern, not his primary (AFAIK).

> The "normal" us ignore that possibility, because we all think that there is
> no reason for anyone to put a searchbeam on us. Who are we anyway that
> anyone would feel the need to put us under it ?
>
> But thats not the point. Just as with being afraid of spiders will not
> stop even though you know that in your nick of the world there are
> absolutily no spiders that can harm you, knowing that the chance that that
> spotlight will single you out is smaller than winning a 5mil jackpot, the
> nagging(? or just full-blown?) fear will never subside.
>
> > 2) that the very *way* he fakes/forges his headers makes it
> > *trivial* for such 'aggregators' to pinpoint his postings.
>
> Could you show how thats done ? I would certainly like to know how I can
> match a new nym to an already existing one. The last time I tried to
> compare the headers of two messages that way I could not find anything even
> remotely matching.

Sorry, I can't post that info, because then also he will know how's
it's done, while he claims it cannot be done and attacks anyone (i.e.
me) who says otherwise. I've given him clue-by-fours many times, but
he's just too clue-resistant and convinced that he can't be wrong. Yet
another of his traits.

> But there is the question why someone would need to fake/forge headers, as
> you can use different newsgroup hosts. There seem to be a number around for
> which only need to register (no credentials checked, just that the provided
> email address exists - even for just a few minutes)...

He already uses multiple NSPs (News SPs), but he wants to go beyond
that and fakes/forges other headers (which he knows how to fake/forge).

N.B. Of late he doesn't switch his nyms and his NSPs as often as he
did, but he has used many tens of different nyms and several different
NSPs.

[R.Wieser]

John Doe,

> Why did you include introductions without quoting any text?

I didn't.

I quoted that itroduction line because its indicates the post being a reply
to someone, but without that someones post anywhere in view (in this, the XP
newsgroup). As I thought I made clear in the three points I wrote below
it.

I also did quote "any text" (de two lines directly below the quoted
"introductions" line), just below the above - as a start for my response to
the actual content.

> > 1) why did you chose to add the XP newsgroup to it ?
>
> Maybe because it's freaking crazy.

Maybe. But I do not wish to jump to conclusions (and especially not ones
like that). Maybe he has a good reason for it, and I'm (we are) the one(s)
just not seeing it ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser










Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

> Of course one can't prove a negative

Quite. But you still seem to want to deny the possibility of the existance
of a positive - and even though you seem to concede that it happens for
other kinds of web-based communications.

> but - as I said - there is no indication that these Usenet
> aggregators actually exist.

So, you deny the example I gave you ? Than I'm afraid we have, in this
regard, nothing to talk about anymore. Sorry.

And by the way, I did make a mistake. I referred to Googles usenet access
with the name "gmail", where it should have been, as some googleing showed
me, "google groups". Does that change anything for you(especially in
regard to your "usenet aggregation does not exist!" stance) ?

> Not quite (AFAIK). He's afraid that his *identity* will be found out.

How come you think so ? And how would that knowledge benefit or damage
anyone ?

> Whether that found identity will be used against him is a subsequent
> concern, not his primary (AFAIK).

I don't think so. Its the possibility of the latter which *causes* the
wish to conceal the former. The latter simply does not exist without the
former.

> Sorry, I can't post that info, because then also he will know
> how's it's done,

Ofcourse. As your method of detection depends on him making mistakes, you
don't want him to get privvy to the ones he (still) does make.

In other words, its as good as looking at the way someone writes his
messages (word usage, punctuation, etc.), and infer that two messages must
have been from the same person.

Bummer. I thought it was an exact science.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Frank Slootweg]

[About the resident nymshifter, currently (not) known as "Arlen Holder":]

R.Wieser <add...@not.available> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> > Of course one can't prove a negative
>
> Quite. But you still seem to want to deny the possibility of the existance
> of a positive - and even though you seem to concede that it happens for
> other kinds of web-based communications.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote (and you quoted):

<quote>

It has been mentioned many times that 1) there is no indication -
let alone proof - that such 'aggregators' [1] actually exist

</quote>

So I do not 'deny' anything, I just state the facts as they're known
(at the moment).

> > but - as I said - there is no indication that these Usenet
> > aggregators actually exist.
>
> So, you deny the example I gave you ? Than I'm afraid we have, in this
> regard, nothing to talk about anymore. Sorry.
>
> And by the way, I did make a mistake. I referred to Googles usenet access
> with the name "gmail", where it should have been, as some googleing showed
> me, "google groups". Does that change anything for you(especially in
> regard to your "usenet aggregation does not exist!" stance) ?

I read 'gmail' for what it is, but now I see you mean Google Groups.

However my position remains the same, no indication of let alone proof
- that such (Usenet) 'aggregators' actually exist.

Reading your additional comments, I realize that you perhaps might not
know what is meant by the term 'aggregators' (FYI, it's is he who
introduced that term in these non-discussions).

An 'aggregators' *combines* information from *multiple* sources, so
the example(s) you gave are *not* an example of aggregation.

See for example:

<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/aggregator?s=t>

"aggregator
...
2. Digital Technology. a web-based or installed application that
aggregates related, frequently updated content from various Internet
sources and consolidates it in one place for viewing: an automated
news aggregator."

> > Not quite (AFAIK). He's afraid that his *identity* will be found out.
>
> How come you think so ? And how would that knowledge benefit or damage
> anyone ?

Because he told us (YTIU) so, over and over ad nauseum.

As to the second question: Nonbody knows and nobody buys his
multi-tens-of-lines 'explanations'.

No offense, I know that you're a Usenet old hand, but apparently you
have little to no experience with this character. Sadly we have
experience, several years of it and it and his mental disorder (Yes, he
has a mental disorder and has publicly *said* so multiple times.) are
not getting any better.

> > Whether that found identity will be used against him is a subsequent
> > concern, not his primary (AFAIK).
>
> I don't think so. Its the possibility of the latter which *causes* the
> wish to conceal the former. The latter simply does not exist without the
> former.

You're being logical. He doesn't do logic. (He *says* he does and even
claims he's an expert in also that area, but in reality he's more often
illogical than logical.)

> > Sorry, I can't post that info, because then also he will know
> > how's it's done,
>
> Ofcourse. As your method of detection depends on him making mistakes, you
> don't want him to get privvy to the ones he (still) does make.
>
> In other words, its as good as looking at the way someone writes his
> messages (word usage, punctuation, etc.), and infer that two messages must
> have been from the same person.

FWIW, I use the header-analysis as confirmation. I.e. most of the time
it's clear as daylight - from his wording, posing, MO, etc. - that a new
nym is again him, but sometimes there can be the tiniest bit of doubt.
In the latter case, I look at the headers and immediately see "Yes, it's
him again.".

> Bummer. I thought it was an exact science.

:-)

Nice chit-chatting :-) with you!

[Frank Slootweg]

[About the common worthless troll current known as "Frank Slootweg"]

> FWIW, I use the header-analysis as confirmation. I.e. most of the time
> it's clear as daylight - from his wording, posing, MO, etc. - that a new
> nym is again him, but sometimes there can be the tiniest bit of doubt.
> In the latter case, I look at the headers and immediately see "Yes, it's
> him again.".

Hi Frank Slootweg,

*How exactly do you unambiguously figure out it's me from my headers?*

Yes, this is me (or is it "this is I"?)

Anyway, besides my perfect grammar, punctuation, spelling, and the fact
that I have perfectly formatted subject lines, and that I post the *same*
paths, same phones, same machines, same operating systems, same menus, same
background, same locale (when it matters), same words (who else uses
"orthodox for a start menu for heaven's sake), etc.

*How exactly do you unambiguously figure out it's me from my headers?*

HINT: I find it funny that you (and others) accuse all sorts of people of
being me, and you're right half the time (roughly) and dead wrong the other
half of the time - where I don't dissuade you on either count as you
wouldn't believe me in either case (and there's no way to prove it either
way for me so it would be futile).

NOTE: If you can't figure out my posts in about ten seconds, just from the
subject & body, then you're a fool - but that's not the privacy that I
strategically aim for ('cuz I could easily change my vernacular & MO if I
felt like hiding from everyone with a brain - but I don't).

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

> Please don't put words in my mouth. I wrote (and you quoted):
>
> <quote>
>
> It has been mentioned many times that 1) there is no indication -
> let alone proof - that such 'aggregators' [1] actually exist
>
> </quote>

So you want to deny you also wrote this:

> For *other*
> media, such as Gmail which you mentioned in your other posts,
> Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., such aggregators of course
> *do* exist,

I'm not the one putting those words into your mouth, *you* did.

> So I do not 'deny' anything, I just state the facts as they're
> known (at the moment).

Facts ? Seeing that you activily ignore any indication of the existance of
"a large collection of usenet messages, spanning at least a decade" (how's
that for trying not to let you trip over some word ?), I don't think you a
even have a working grasp of what that word means. Sorry.

> However my position remains the same, no indication of let alone proof
> - that such (Usenet) 'aggregators' actually exist.

Again, I beg to differ. See below.

> An 'aggregators' *combines* information from *multiple* sources, so
> the example(s) you gave are *not* an example of aggregation.

Guess again. Usenet is a distributed system, with no server obligated to
serve all newsgroups. So yes, if google groups wants to offer *all*
newsgroups it will have to combine them from different usenet servers.

Which is pretty much exactly the explanation you linked to, don't you think
?

And thats even when I do not agree with your singling-out that particular
explanation, as as far as I know the term "aggregation" can also be used for
a time-seperated combining of stuff . And with over a decade worth of
"stuff" in google groups (gathered every day), I think that the word is even
apropriate here.

> No offense, I know that you're a Usenet old hand, but apparently
> you have little to no experience with this character.

Guess again, again. As an "old hand" I've met them in all sorts and
variations. Most behave like you, trying to ignore what has being said,
stumble over words and complaining about not having said stuff (and/or being
amadant that their adversary said something he never did) in an attempt to
derail the conversation, and some are like Arlen, very "vocal" and going for
the messenger himself. The end effect is the same. No actual conversation
possible.

And as I do not see any wining move for me in that game you are playing I
bid you goodbye.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[R.Wieser]

Frank,

And by the way, I ignored it because it was rather inconsequential to me,
but as you seem to be the person who wants words to be used strictly by
their definitions (as you know them), I cannot help wondering about the
below:

> For *other* media, such as Gmail which you mentioned in your other
> posts, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., such aggregators of course
> *do* exist, but we're talking about Usenet, not those other media.

How come you have no problem to state that *single data source* services {1}
like gmail, google, facebook and twitter *can* be aggregated from and than
_as easily_ state that google groups *cannot* possibly aggregate - because,
as you seem think, all its data comes from a single source ?

Something stinks here, and this time it aint my socks. :-)

And no, I am not referring to you having made a mistake to where google
groups gets its data from, or how your used-and-linked-to definition of
"aggregation" is a partial one. Im referring to the fact that the very
reason you rejected google groups with seems to be fully ignored for the
companies you brought forward yourself.

{1} All of the data goes thru and is fully controlled by their respective
companies. And yes, that is ignoring that the first two are subsidiaries of
Google, with the mentioning of "google" in the quote assumed to be referring
to the search engine.
And no, its no fun to have to specify everything like this, just so you
don't trip up over yet another word. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Frank Slootweg]

R.Wieser <add...@not.available> wrote:
[...]

> Most behave like you, trying to ignore what has being said,
> stumble over words and complaining about not having said stuff (and/or being
> amadant that their adversary said something he never did) in an attempt to
> derail the conversation, and some are like Arlen, very "vocal" and going for
> the messenger himself. The end effect is the same. No actual conversation
> possible.
>
> And as I do not see any wining move for me in that game you are playing I
> bid you goodbye.

Hi Rudy,

It's indeed best to agree to 'disagree'. From where I'm standing, your
comments match what I see, but the other way around. So we clearly have
our wires crossed and there's indeed no point continuing, because things
can only get from bad to worse.

In any case, no hard feelings from my side.

P.S. AFAIK/AFAICT, the tone of your post is out of character for you, so
I think that I might have offended you. That was not my intention. If
I've offended you, feel free to tell with what, so I can apologize
or/and clarify.

If by any chance it was the "Nice chit-chatting :-) with you!" which
offended you, please know that that was a sting at our resident
nymshifter, not at you.

[Frank Slootweg]

Arlen Holder <arlen...@nospam.net>, frogging my 'From:' header, wrote:
> [About the common worthless troll current known as "Frank Slootweg"]
> > FWIW, I use the header-analysis as confirmation. I.e. most of the time
> > it's clear as daylight - from his wording, posing, MO, etc. - that a new
> > nym is again him, but sometimes there can be the tiniest bit of doubt.
> > In the latter case, I look at the headers and immediately see "Yes, it's
> > him again.".
>
> Hi Frank Slootweg,
>
> *How exactly do you unambiguously figure out it's me from my headers?*

From your first line, it's clear that you are following the discussion
between Rudy Wieser and myself.

So why are you asking questions, which have been answered already?

Other than that, you've already asked this and similar questions
umpteen times and I have given you clue-by-fours as many times.

You're always boasting about your intelligence and cleverness, but
you're unable to figure out a trivial thing like this?

[More self-boasting deleted.]

> HINT: I find it funny that you (and others) accuse all sorts of people of
> being me, and you're right half the time (roughly) and dead wrong the other
> half of the time - where I don't dissuade you on either count as you
> wouldn't believe me in either case (and there's no way to prove it either
> way for me so it would be futile).

Yet another of your lies. I've never accused others of being you.

So like for all of your other false claims:

Provide *proof* (cite and News URL) or stop lying.

[...]

[Frank Slootweg]

R.Wieser <add...@not.available> wrote:
[...]

> How come you have no problem to state that *single data source* services {1}
> like gmail, google, facebook and twitter *can* be aggregated from and than
> _as easily_ state that google groups *cannot* possibly aggregate - because,
> as you seem think, all its data comes from a single source ?

Rudy,

We've already closed this (non-)discussion, so this is just FYI:

If you have (access to) a Facebook account, then see:

'How do I download a copy of my information on Facebook?'
<https://www.facebook.com/help/212802592074644>

For most 'normal' Facebook accounts, you will see that Facebook is
clearly *not* 'single-source', because - for example - companies which
the Facebook user has been in contact with *outside* Facebook, can/will
upload *their* data about the Facebook user to Facebook. So (some)
third-party data about a Facebook user is available to Facebook, i.e.
Facebook is not single-source.

For Facebook, I know this not only from reports - in the media etc. -
but from actual experience from downloading and analyzing the Facebook
data from SWMBO's account. For example, data from SWMBO's account at KLM
(Dutch airline) has been uploaded into her Facebook data. BTW, this is
no secret or anything, Facebook clearly 'admits' doing this, albeit in
hard to understand prose. This has also been widely covered in the
media, at least in the US and our country (NL).

For the others - Gmail, Google and Twitter - I only/mainly know their
multiple-source nature from reports, not so much from actual experience.

Hope this is of some use to you/others.

[...]

[Arlen Holder]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 23:38:22 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

> Questions remain which will require a Windows 10 expert to resolve!
> Q: What Windows magic happens during reboot (which allows default sets)?
> Q: What Windows magic will put Epic in the app uninstall menus?

As an experiment to figure out what the actual Edge-related registry keys
are, I ran RevoUninstaller in Hunter Mode on the Epic shortcut that has
been working for a few days, with Epic already in the moved location of
c:\app\browser\http\ch_based\epic.exe

It seems that there are four places where Epic is in the registry:
<http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=18_epic_registry01.jpg>

The main location seems to be:
HKCU\Software\Classes\ChromiumHTM.<26-character-unique-serial-number>
That location also shows the shell open command default value of:
"C:\app\browser\http\ch_based\epic\epic.exe" -- %1"

But that's probably based on the shortcut, so we need to look to see how
Microsoft Windows 10 figured out that Epic existed, so that it could be set
to the Default Web Brower in the Microsoft Default Settings.

There are three other keys that might be that Microsoft magic:
HKCU\Software\Classes\ChromiumHTM.<26-character-unique-serial-number>
HKCU\Software\Epic
HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\FileExts\.htm\UserChoice\
ProgId - ChromiumHTM.<26-character-unique-serial-number>
(the same for the .html default setting)
HKCU\Software\Classes\ChromiumHTM.<26-character-unique-serial-number>

What's interesting is that the mere action of "moving" Epic to where it
belongs and rebooting, causes those keys to be placed into the Windows
registry.

If you don't reboot, Epic doesn't work.
If you reboot. Epic works.

Those four registry keys are what showed up between those two phases,
hence, they are probably the "magic" that enables Epic to be an option to
be set as the Widows default web browser.