Re: What about this!!!

From: Michael J. Pelletier (mjpelletier_at_mjpelletier.com)
Date: 01/20/05


Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:55:46 -0800

Technobarbarian wrote:

>
> "Michael J. Pelletier" <mjpelletier@mjpelletier.com> wrote in message
> news:VhzHd.6031$Nu.1868@fed1read04...
>
>>>> What drives you to be such a jerk to people? Does it make you feel
>>>> better
>>>> about yourself?
>>>
>>>> In article <dMHwd.46097$ka2.6508@fed1read04>, Michael J. Pelletier
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> SPAMMER! DIE!!!!
>>>
>>> Too funny. What's factually incorrect about my post?
>>>
>>> TB
>>
>> Nothing is factually incorrect. It is how you speak to people that is
>> incorrect......
>
> That's one very large set of brass balls you've got ya' there. You're
> hollering "spammer, die" at perfectly acceptable posts and you have the
> cajones to complain because my manners don't exactly suit you? You are
> truly a hoot! In my long history on usenet I have never suggested that
> someone die. You are exactly the last person on this group from whom I
> will take advice on manners.

A comment like "Spammer Die" is as much of an expression as "crawl under a
rock" or whatever. You know it as do I. As far as "perfectly acceptable
posts..." well I disagree but I am not going to get off topic.

I too have a long history on usenet. I have seen it filled with people truly
looking to help or be helped. Recently, and unfortunately, I have seen more
and more ignorant people like yourself. Someone posts a question that is
not stated correctly you jump all over them, like you did to this poor guy.
I have met many people like you and the past. You get off on ridiculing
people because you can hide behind a computer. People like you are always
brave when you can be autonomous and are totally different when
face-to-face. When face to face you are nothing more than a miserable
whinny fool who is not so quick to ridicule because you know you will get
your ass kicked...so go ahead and hide little man....
 
> Under the circumstances I thought I was being surprisingly reticent.
> The
> fool was running around hollering about a subject about which he knows
> less than nothing.

Exactly what I meant. He made a mistake big f'n deal...His mistake does not
give you the right to be an jackass...

> My question was and is a valid question. Even if
> Microsoft was doing exactly what he erroneously thought they were
> doing--so what? It's no big deal. No one is forcing anyone to use MS
> Antispyware. They certainly have made no secret of the voluntary
> validation process or any other condition of use that people are
> complaining about. I don't get it. Use it or don't use it depending on
> your tastes. So far the only valid complaint I've seen about the program
> itself is that it sometimes produces false positives. If you know what
> you're doing it's no big deal and it's certainly not the only security
> program that produces false positives. I prefer false positives to false
> negatives. People who want their software to lead them around by the hand
> like a blind baby are probably better off sticking with less aggressive
> programs. You'll probably miss some stuff, but you're less likely to screw
> things up because you didn't know what you downloaded and installed on
> your machine. In the group of programs I use MS Antispyware probably falls
> around the middle in terms of in terms of how aggressively spyware is
> defined and identified. People looking for the perfect antispyware program
> had better immigrate to another planet. It aint happenin' here anytime
> soon.

Yes, you are correct. If you don't like it don't use it. Again, I am not
disagreeing with what you said but how you said it...

>
> TB