From: David W. Hodgins on
On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:48:55 -0500, The Central Scrutinizer <gcisko(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> I am saying you appear to be a whacky nut-job that thinks MS is incapable of
> having an AV product because of who they are.

Your a new poster here. Every once in a while, some m$ paid patsy
shows up to claim their software is good, and I suspect you are
another silly m$ employee.

> Hey pal I am the central scrutinizer not you OK. I'll tell you what
> to trim and what not to trim. You dig?

You're also obviously new to usenet

Eventually, I expect you'll learn to trim your articles, of you'll
find yourself plonked by all of the regular posters here.

M$ has purchased another anti virus application. I expect, within
a year or two, they will give up trying to maintain it, just like
they did before, with MSAV.

I've gotten so frustrated trying to maintain systems where the
fools who designed them made the mistake of using M$ software,
that, yes, I really dislike the company.

For you to call me an idiot for blaming m$ for producing crapware,
instead of good software, just shows who the real idiot is.

I find it amusing, that you are afraid to use your real name.

I'm laughing at your silly reply.

Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
From: FromTheRafters on
"The Central Scrutinizer" <gcisko(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hkte6i$nqg$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
> "Char Jackson" <none(a)none.invalid> wrote in message
> news:g4a3n5hs9bek7qjm7k33f8bl0badpmg77s(a)4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 07:36:44 -0600, Bill <wsblevins(a)hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>I'll chime in here. I took a brief look at some independent
>>>comparative
>>>tests, which would conclude that MS Security Essentials Anti-Virus
>>>would
>>>be adequate for most people's needs. No AV product is completely
>>>effective without some common sense being used. Personally, I choose
>>>to
>>>use NOD32 because I have used it for years and don't mind paying for
>>>it.
>>>As for a firewall, the one included with Windows 7 does just fine
>>>according to tests performed at Shields Up on the grc.com website.
>>>It's
>>>fully stealth, and that's good enough for me.
>>
>> If you're using a router, as many of us do, then Shields Up is
>> testing
>> your router rather than your Windows firewall.
>
> And that matters how?

It's kind of like having an encrypted letter in a safe, and having
someone attempt to test the strength of the encryption. He walks in the
room, can't open the safe, and reports to you that he can't read the
letter - the conclusion that the encryption is strong at this point
would be erroneous.


From: Slarty on
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:08:28 -0500, David W. Hodgins wrote:

> Eventually, I expect you'll learn to trim your articles, of you'll
> find yourself plonked by all of the regular posters here.

Alreay done here. :-) Doesn't take long to recognise a prat like
him/her/it.

Cheers,

Roy
From: Buffalo on


The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
[snip]
> Hey pal I am the central scrutinizer not you OK. I'll tell you what
> to trim and what not to trim. You dig?

You truely sound like an ignorant, but arrogant, idiot.
Buffalo


From: The Central Scrutinizer on
Really. Can you be sure??? I am actually surprised you replied this way.
Very
interesting.

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:hktf7a016r3(a)news3.newsguy.com...
> From: "The Central Scrutinizer" <gcisko(a)hotmail.com>
>
> | "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> | news:hksk6c0l79(a)news3.newsguy.com...
>>> | If you're using a router, as many of us do, then Shields Up is testing
>>> | your router rather than your Windows firewall.
>
>
>>> +1
>
> | So um... Does this mean the windows firewall is inadequete?
>
>
> No this meaqns this is subject matter that you don't comprehend.
>
> --
> Dave
> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
>
>