Re: freeware anti virus products

From: Frank Slootweg (this_at_ddress.is.invalid)
Date: 09/15/04 

Date: 15 Sep 2004 06:35:29 GMT

Tx2 <this.might.be@n.invalid.address.com> wrote:
> In article <41472ccd$0$46381$cd19a363@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> this@ddress.is.invalid, a.k.a Frank Slootweg says...
>
> [...]
>
> > What does "below" mean, i.e. on *which* aspect(s) does it score less
> > and how objective are those scores?
>
> Below as in underneath, not as high as etc ...

  Yes, I understand that. Hint: "less". I asked *which* aspects (i.e.
features, specification, <whatever>) were "below"/less. And they are?

> I wasn't referring to one particular review, just a general observation
> from several. Google will reveal a multitude of web sites where you can
> find the specific information you apparently seek.

  No, I am not "seeking" anything! *You* implied that the free products
are worse than the payed ones ("They're free; expect nothing that might
be considered wholly reliable."). Until now you have not substantiated/
'proven' your claim, and from the above I can only conclude that you
can't.

> > [clarification (thanks!) deleted]
>
> huh?

  You clarified your position (on "free"), I thanked you for it and
deleted it (but said so). Not really hard, is it?

> > > Did i say free was bad?
> > No, you didn't, but you *did* silently snip my smiley!
>
> oops, there goes another one.

  Oh, the razor-sharp wit. I stand in awe!

Quantcast