Queries about Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: Charlie on 10 Jan 2010 11:33 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:33:07 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nobody(a)dizum.com> wrote: > ><fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 02:19:21 +0100 (CET), Anonymous <cripto(a)ecn.org> >> wrote: >> >>> >>><fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.antivirusware.com/norton-antivirus/ >>> >>>Well known "paid by the click" site, gets money from Symantec sales! >>> >>>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349866,00.asp >>> >>>Gets LOTS of Symantec advertising money! >>> >>>> http://download.cnet.com/Norton-AntiVirus-2010/3000-2239_4-10592477.html >>> >>>Gets LOTS of Symantec advertising money! >>> >>>> http://www.howtogeek.com/reviews/norton-internet-security-2010/ >>> >>>Well known "paid by the click" site, gets money from Symantec sales! >>> >>>> http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.php >>> >>>Paid handsomely to "test" Symantec! >>> >>>> Let the FACTS speak for themselves..if YOU dare! >>> >>>The facts DO speak for themselves! EVERY ONE of your links makes >>>money out of pushing Symantec! You're just shilling for other shills, >>>dipshit! >> >> OK then..maybe you are right and I'm wrong. Post your sources that >> PROVE what you CLAIM is true...dipshit. Bet you can't. > >The Truth Is Out There For All To See, Kunta Kinte! > >Go to the sites and click on the links, then breathe deeply through your >flared nostrils and smell the bullshit, dipshit! Thank you for your kind and courteous Usenet post. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
From: FromTheRafters on 10 Jan 2010 16:47 "Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:220kk594u9ncvkedcdiiimhrs48k5r0min(a)4ax.com... > Thank you for your kind and courteous Usenet post. Same ol' Charlie. :o)
From: FromTheRafters on 10 Jan 2010 16:58 "Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qqmik5h330mj3ihu8kjmr8pq904bu2p325(a)4ax.com... > Well if you want to set your own criteria for what tests are > meaningful and that the AV testing industry has gone astray > from actual facts..then so be it for you and you alone. I doubt that I'm alone in this, Charlie. > Your public testimony pertaining to AV test methods goes against > over a decade of compiled test method and test method revision. No, it doesn't. Why do you think the tests used to use carefully maintained virus sets where each sample was proven to be an actual viable virus. > It might seem like a noble quest for your self but you have not > persuaded me nor probably anyone else UNLESS you have established > credibility in this field. Do you? Years ago I spoke with ICSA Labs > on the phone and they informed me they use NAV as thier in-house AV > client. I thought that was a pretty good endorsement above and beyond > thier stellar reviews of the saame product. > > OK..I have been on and off Usenet over 20 years now and I know when to > post and discuss and when to move on. Move on then, don't let the door hit your behind. [...]
From: Nomen Nescio on 10 Jan 2010 23:35 "Toxic" <staring(a)my_hd.tv> wrote in message news:pan.2010.01.11.00.13.55(a)cdc.gov... > On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:47:35 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote: > >> "Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:220kk594u9ncvkedcdiiimhrs48k5r0min(a)4ax.com... >> >>> Thank you for your kind and courteous Usenet post. >> >> Same ol' Charlie. :o) > > > That's the charm of Dixie ethics, > something that has eluded the joisey jewboi > as he shuffles through his list of mail2news nymshitizers. So you're saying Fat Charlie is a Dixie jigajoo? :o)
From: James Morrow on 11 Jan 2010 14:19
In article <uaahk51m7gbsc30n66jr1l4kgu9lqm4u9t(a)4ax.com>, fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com says... <snip> > Here are a few of dozens of very POSITIVE Norton 2010 security > product reviews I have gathered. They were easy to find - there are > SO MANY of them! > > Oh yeah and of course Symantec paid ALL these firms to LIE and risk > their corporate reputations in the AV industry...sheesh! > > http://www.antivirusware.com/norton-antivirus/ > "Norton AntiVirus is the world's best-selling security program" > > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2349866,00.asp > - PCMag 'EDITOR'S CHOICE" is Norton Internet Security 2010 - > "Last year Symantec pulled out all the stops to reduce Norton Internet > Security's impact on system performance. This year's version of the > suite, Norton Internet Security 2010 ($69.99 direct for 3 licenses), > focuses both on improving the user's experience and raising overall > protection. As we saw with our early look at the beta of Norton > Internet Security 2010, the release version succeeds at both aims > without sacrificing performance, securing its position as our Editors' > Choice." > <snip> Of the "dozens of positive" reviews you reference here how many are of the of the bogus type like the PCMag article? It is a well established fact that PCMag is heavily influenced by the purchase of advertising space. The objectivity of such a publication is very open to question. Such an article does not constitute an independent review of the software. Dave's opinion is backed by his long experience. His credulity in this group is well established. If you want to argue fact then do so. But here mere numbers of reviews are not going to cut it. You have a right to your own opinion but the burden of backing it up with facts fall squarely on you alone. PCMag in particular will not carry much weight here. -- James E. Morrow Email to: jamesemorrow(a)email.com |