Avast Doesn't Block XP Defender malware (ave.exe)
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: Jenn on 8 Apr 2010 14:51 "Leythos" <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2627ea48fde8edaf98a298(a)us.news.astraweb.com... > In article <hpl6ef$2n1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says... >> You used the wikipedia definition of Intenet troll to back up your >> premise >> about off-topic posts... that definition includes the idea that calling >> anyone a troll would also apply the definition to their bent towards >> posting >> off-topic posts... >> >> Meaning.. the application of the term troll ... would include the part of >> off-topic posts ... would also be highly subjective and could be taken >> just >> as equally by others as an on-topic post. >> > > To do as you suggest you would have to ignore the first parts that I > posted, defining what is OFF-TOPIC based on the groups name/topic. > > Thanks for showing, based on your last line, that his posts follow the > definition of "off-topic" as well as his own suggestion that chaos is > permitted because he wants it and doesn't care about the standards or > rules. > No.. by using the wikipedia definition, you open the door for discounting your premise because the definition is subjective. -- Jenn (from Oklahoma) http://pqlr.org/bbs/
From: Leythos on 8 Apr 2010 14:54 In article <hpl8jl$a6i$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says... > > "Leythos" <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.2627ea48fde8edaf98a298(a)us.news.astraweb.com... > > In article <hpl6ef$2n1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says... > >> You used the wikipedia definition of Intenet troll to back up your > >> premise > >> about off-topic posts... that definition includes the idea that calling > >> anyone a troll would also apply the definition to their bent towards > >> posting > >> off-topic posts... > >> > >> Meaning.. the application of the term troll ... would include the part of > >> off-topic posts ... would also be highly subjective and could be taken > >> just > >> as equally by others as an on-topic post. > >> > > > > To do as you suggest you would have to ignore the first parts that I > > posted, defining what is OFF-TOPIC based on the groups name/topic. > > > > Thanks for showing, based on your last line, that his posts follow the > > definition of "off-topic" as well as his own suggestion that chaos is > > permitted because he wants it and doesn't care about the standards or > > rules. > > > > > No.. by using the wikipedia definition, you open the door for discounting > your premise because the definition is subjective. Hardly, you discounted the definitions of "Off-Topic" because you don't like the definition of "Troll", the intent of "Troll" was to show that trolls often post off-topic, but you can't dismiss that the continued posts he's made are off-topic. Off-Topic is not subjective. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Jenn on 8 Apr 2010 15:09 "Leythos" <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2627f07176f2fb6298a299(a)us.news.astraweb.com... > In article <hpl8jl$a6i$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says... >> >> "Leythos" <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in message >> news:MPG.2627ea48fde8edaf98a298(a)us.news.astraweb.com... >> > In article <hpl6ef$2n1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> > me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says... >> >> You used the wikipedia definition of Intenet troll to back up your >> >> premise >> >> about off-topic posts... that definition includes the idea that >> >> calling >> >> anyone a troll would also apply the definition to their bent towards >> >> posting >> >> off-topic posts... >> >> >> >> Meaning.. the application of the term troll ... would include the part >> >> of >> >> off-topic posts ... would also be highly subjective and could be taken >> >> just >> >> as equally by others as an on-topic post. >> >> >> > >> > To do as you suggest you would have to ignore the first parts that I >> > posted, defining what is OFF-TOPIC based on the groups name/topic. >> > >> > Thanks for showing, based on your last line, that his posts follow the >> > definition of "off-topic" as well as his own suggestion that chaos is >> > permitted because he wants it and doesn't care about the standards or >> > rules. >> No.. by using the wikipedia definition, you open the door for discounting >> your premise because the definition is subjective. > Hardly, you discounted the definitions of "Off-Topic" because you don't > like the definition of "Troll", the intent of "Troll" was to show that > trolls often post off-topic, but you can't dismiss that the continued > posts he's made are off-topic. I discounted the definition of *Off-Topic* because you used the wikipedia definition of internet troll which includes that term within the definition of *internet Troll*. If you were to use a different source that does not have that addition *Usage* section that says the definition is *subjective*, then I would not have a premise to challenge you. > Off-Topic is not subjective. > Yes it is subjective... Have you ever does this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_Topic It is a common courtesy to mark a new off-topic posting or email by beginning it with "OT"[citation needed] - for example in a forum discussing the Linux operating system someone might post: "OT: Wow, did you feel that earthquake?". If you don't, yet you claim to label others as posting off-topic material, wouldn't that make every post subjective that you consider to be off-topic since you also post off-topic? I've never seen anyone do this, yet, I've many many claims about off-topic material and added notations that people should begin new threads or take it elsewhere, yet, no one ever does. -- Jenn (from Oklahoma) http://pqlr.org/bbs/
From: Leythos on 8 Apr 2010 15:19 In article <hpl9lo$dmh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says... > > "Leythos" <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.2627f07176f2fb6298a299(a)us.news.astraweb.com... > > In article <hpl8jl$a6i$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says... > >> > >> "Leythos" <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in message > >> news:MPG.2627ea48fde8edaf98a298(a)us.news.astraweb.com... > >> > In article <hpl6ef$2n1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > >> > me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says... > >> >> You used the wikipedia definition of Intenet troll to back up your > >> >> premise > >> >> about off-topic posts... that definition includes the idea that > >> >> calling > >> >> anyone a troll would also apply the definition to their bent towards > >> >> posting > >> >> off-topic posts... > >> >> > >> >> Meaning.. the application of the term troll ... would include the part > >> >> of > >> >> off-topic posts ... would also be highly subjective and could be taken > >> >> just > >> >> as equally by others as an on-topic post. > >> >> > >> > > >> > To do as you suggest you would have to ignore the first parts that I > >> > posted, defining what is OFF-TOPIC based on the groups name/topic. > >> > > >> > Thanks for showing, based on your last line, that his posts follow the > >> > definition of "off-topic" as well as his own suggestion that chaos is > >> > permitted because he wants it and doesn't care about the standards or > >> > rules. > > > >> No.. by using the wikipedia definition, you open the door for discounting > >> your premise because the definition is subjective. > > > > Hardly, you discounted the definitions of "Off-Topic" because you don't > > like the definition of "Troll", the intent of "Troll" was to show that > > trolls often post off-topic, but you can't dismiss that the continued > > posts he's made are off-topic. > > I discounted the definition of *Off-Topic* because you used the wikipedia > definition of internet troll which includes that term within the definition > of *internet Troll*. If you were to use a different source that does not > have that addition *Usage* section that says the definition is *subjective*, > then I would not have a premise to challenge you. > > > Off-Topic is not subjective. > > > > Yes it is subjective... No, it's not subjective - if it's not about (in this group) ANTI-VIRUS then it's off-topic by clear definition. > Have you ever does this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_Topic > It is a common courtesy to mark a new off-topic posting or email by > beginning it with "OT"[citation needed] - for example in a forum discussing > the Linux operating system someone might post: "OT: Wow, did you feel that > earthquake?". Yep, I've made the OT notation in the subject, to let others know it was OT, but, in decades of Usenet use, I can count the number of off-topic threads I've started on my fingers. > If you don't, yet you claim to label others as posting off-topic > material, > wouldn't that make every post subjective that you consider to be off-topic > since you also post off-topic? I've never seen anyone do this, yet, I've > many many claims about off-topic material and added notations that people > should begin new threads or take it elsewhere, yet, no one ever does. Notice that this group is alt.comp.ANTI-VIRUS? So, to address your OT lesson - why have you not mentioned this to BD? He's been posting OT in this news group and many others, for many posts, but he's not marking them OT, not started a new thread with OT, not taking it somewhere else? -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: ~BD~ on 8 Apr 2010 15:47
I say, old bean, how about taking this off topic discussion to email? Be a good chap and follow Usenet protocol, eh? What! Thanks a bunch! ;) -- Dave - With a wink to Jenn! |