Microsoft has removed 500+ groups, including 21 Windows-98 groups
in [Windows 98]
|
From: MEB on 20 Dec 2009 00:37 On 12/19/2009 11:54 PM, MEB wrote: > On 12/19/2009 11:34 PM, Jeff Richards wrote: >> And we can confidently predict it will be as effective as you previous >> effort. >> >> http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/before_you_plug_in.html >> seems to be unchanged. How could that be? > > REALLY< are you going on official record with that... > > The documents at CERT are CUED for modification. AND AS I NOTED, that > document DOES NOT REFLECT what you attempted to state. IT SAYS > INITIALLY. The document, as I specifically NOTED in the relevant > discussion, could ONLY be mis-interpreted by someone WITHOUT the ability > to comprehend what it FULLY STATES. > You need to brush up on your reading skills. AND you should read the > rest of the recommended materials at the site. That is, unless you want > to remain a fool. > And so the rest of the parties understand what Jeff SUPPOSEDLY made a point of... The referral was to a discussion wherein Jeff linked to the article and posting in here as a purported *finite statement* to support HIS position that firewalls are not required when behind a router. EVEN THOUGH the document is FOR INITIAL SETUP *only*, and later recommends a firewall, as do other documents on CERT, and AFTER I directed him to these FACTS. Shows how bright this Jeff Richards character really is... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___---
From: MEB on 20 Dec 2009 00:45 On 12/20/2009 12:30 AM, 98 Guy wrote: > MEB wrote: > >>> You seem to think that just because Microsoft originally created >>> these groups on it's own NNTP server, that such an event >>> constitutes ownership of them regardless where they subsequently >>> exist. >> >> And THAT *FACT* is the *ONLY* relevant matter. Microsoft created >> the groups and OWNS THEM. > > Then why did they not object when those groups were created on other > servers? Not relevant. > > Why did they not object to the "sucking" of posts from their servers and > injection into the other servers? Not relevant. > > Why did they not broadcast group-delete and check-group messages to the > rest of usenet when they remove some groups from their server? Microsoft did. > > Why are you evading answering those questions? They are and were answered, stupid. > > Microsoft's actions are not consistent with your assertion that their > control of these groups extend to servers beyond their own. Wrong, Microsoft's actions are consistent with ownership and control. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___---
From: Sunny on 20 Dec 2009 00:46 "MEB" <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uWtWHATgKHA.3792(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... <snip> > You need to brush up on your reading skills. AND you should read the > rest of the recommended materials at the site. That is, unless you want > to remain a fool. How about you shove your egotistical advice where the sun don't shine.
From: Sunny on 20 Dec 2009 01:00 "MEB" <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:u6%23OtRTgKHA.2184(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > On 12/19/2009 11:59 PM, Sunny wrote: >> Well I though Maurice was a tad strange, now I know he is. :-) >> >> "Whether Microsoft intends to *allow Usenet* to continue fostering the >> fraudulent continuance of the newsgroups recently removed" <snip> >> > > What part of *allow* do you not understand. Your presumption that Microsoft could for one second *allow* or *deny* USENET from doing anything. Confirms the fact that you have no idea what Usenet is. Usenet is not an identity that "fosters" anything. It would be like trying to stop one grain of sand from touching another grain of sand. "Microsoft" is not that good..
From: 98 Guy on 20 Dec 2009 10:00
MEB wrote: > > Then why did they not object when those groups were created on > > other servers? > > Not relevant. They gave up any legal rights or protections to their property (according to your theory) by not taking steps to protect it. For more than 10 years. > > Why did they not object to the "sucking" of posts from their > > servers and injection into the other servers? > > Not relevant. Same argument. > > Why did they not broadcast group-delete and check-group messages > > to the rest of usenet when they remove some groups from their > > server? > > Microsoft did. They did not. That is a lie on your part. That's why Julien �LIE has taken it upon himself to do it. Do you know who he is Meb? > > Why are you evading answering those questions? > > They are and were answered, stupid. You have not answered them before, and the answers you give now are either incomplete or wrong. Explain why Microsoft's inaction is not relevant. > > Microsoft's actions are not consistent with your assertion > > that their control of these groups extend to servers beyond > > their own. > > Wrong, Microsoft's actions are consistent with ownership > and control. How is it consistent to allow your property to be used and duplicated by others for more than a decade and NOT take action to stop that behavior? You of all people should know that the first thing you do when your property is used by others without consent or compensation is to take immediate legal action to stop the activity, lest your INACTION be seen and taken as tacit approval. |