On 05/01/2018 03:59, Diesel wrote:
Java Jive news Thu, 04 Jan 2018 11:30:25 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote:

On 04/01/2018 03:03, Diesel wrote:
Java Jive
news in alt.windows7.general, wrote:

So I repeat, cut the bull**** and stick to the facts.

I didn't provide any.

About 90% of your previous post was bull**** that I had to snip.

Incorrect. It was all information

That was irrelevant to the issue at hand = bull****

[So another snip of 30 lines of unread bull****]

Who said anything about using Windows update to get the
updates?

I said that "the rebuilt installation will not get any updates,
not even the ones originally targeting XP" and that remains
true.

Except that it isn't true.

A new XP build will not receive updates except by Administrator
intervention to install & launch some seperate tool not included
in a standard XP build. That's the meaning of what I wrote, as
quoted above, and it's true.

I was going by what you wrote, above, specifically. Not some
imaginary implied meaning.

On the contrary, the subsequent thread makes it clear that I was
explaining what would normally happen, while you were adding the implied
meaning of the user taking some specific out-of-the-ordinary steps that
wouldn't have been necessary pre-end-of-life. Thus what I wrote was as
true as the further contribution you then made about those specific
steps (as I presume they are true, but your general big-headedness
doesn't exactly lend confidence even in that). Because what I wrote was
true, naturally I take exception to being described as untrue, just
because you read into some meaning of your own that I never mentioned or
intended.

[So another snip of 11 lines of unread bull****]

What you wrote above was based on the fact that you incorrectly
assumed you had to use Windows Update from within the host OS to
get updates.

It's based upon the fact that by default, that is unless you
choose to specifically disable automatic updates, Windows XP
installed before end-of-support would automatically update itself
without requiring any human intervention other than logging on,

You're wrong concerning how XP works again concerning updates. It
didn't require you to login to be able to pull updates, either.

It depended upon user choices made - I always chose to be notified of
updates, and I would choose which and when to install, in which case
Obviously in the former case, you had to be logged on I believe it was
also possible just to have them install automatically. , so again, both
of us are right, and in particular, I was not wrong.

[So another snip of 19 lines of unread bull****]

I didn't provide any bull****. What I wrote concerning the isos
and what you can do with them isn't uncommon knowledge to techs I
know.

It's irrelevant to the discussion, because:

No, it's not.

This directly contradicts ...

:-( It doesn't illuminate either the OP's problem as
riginal stated

I agree. It doesn't help the OP in any way. I provided the
information for others benefit who might still have use for XP.

.... this.

[So another snip of 26 lines of unread bull****]

What you wrote concerning XP isn't of any real use to the OP.

:-( As demonstrated by my test, this claim is incorrect.

Your test? What good are the results of your test? You aren't using
the same key they are. Your test isn't going to magically cause their
copy to become activated.

I described a way to obtain another key at little or no expense, and
showed by previous testing that it would probably work. To me, that
sounds a lot more helpful than 90% of the self-opionated crap that
you've been vomiting into this subthread.

[So another snip of 16 lines of unread bull****]

:My advice
would most probably have worked for him, probably at minimal
expense, and all your irrelevant bull**** since trying to pull
rank rather than actually solve his problem, doesn't alter that
fundamental fact.

Your advice would have cost him money with 50/50 on a good day chance
of working.

As it's obvious that you haven't tried this yourself, you can have no
basis for quoting an exact figure, and therefore to attempt to do so is
basically dishonest - quoting what you'd like to be the case, in order
to avoid losing an argument, as though it were fact. I who have tried
it, based on general reasoning about the way such things work, think the
chances are somewhat higher, but one is too small a statistical sample
to hazard an actual figure, so I, unlike yourself, am going to be honest
and am not going to hazard a figure. And yes, it would have probably
cost him a small amount of money, but someone under those circumstances
might well have thought it a price worth paying.

[So another snip of 51 lines of unread bull****]

Have a nice day!

Unlikely as long as my PC screen is covered with verbal vomit from
yourself. Besides suffering from misplaced delusions of your own
self-importance, you also seem to suffer from a delusion that the more
lines you write, no matter how irrelevant, the stronger your posts will
become, whereas actually what happens is that your readers very quickly
learn to ignore it all, because even if you do say something relevant
and useful, it will be almost impossible to find amidst all the crap,
and probably not worth the effort of finding it even then.