Registry cleaner ?

"Unknown" wrote in
:

Unknown typed:

SNIP

OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING
A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one
posted.

You have not been plonked yet, so YOU give me a solid example.
Toilet Toilet couldn't.

Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else
who disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide
something useful and convincing, or shut up.

I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the
sort. Don't say it's incumbant

incumbent

on me
because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all
the MVPs (and many others advice) .
But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when
they admit a compatability issue, never admits it's their
fault; instead preferring to say it's between x and y,
someone other than MS and MS.

Heh heh.

SNIP

--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)

You and Twayne are exactly like Laurel and Hardy. Which one of you is Hardy is
debatable

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"thanatoid" wrote in message
...
"Unknown" wrote in
:

Unknown typed:

SNIP

OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING
A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one
posted.

You have not been plonked yet, so YOU give me a solid example.
Toilet Toilet couldn't.

Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else
who disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide
something useful and convincing, or shut up.

I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the
sort. Don't say it's incumbant

incumbent

on me
because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all
the MVPs (and many others advice) .
But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when
they admit a compatability issue, never admits it's their
fault; instead preferring to say it's between x and y,
someone other than MS and MS.

Heh heh.

SNIP

--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)

You and Twayne are exactly like Laurel and Hardy. Which one of you is Hardy is
debatable

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"thanatoid" wrote in message
...
"Unknown" wrote in
:

Unknown typed:

SNIP

OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING
A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one
posted.

You have not been plonked yet, so YOU give me a solid example.
Toilet Toilet couldn't.

Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else
who disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide
something useful and convincing, or shut up.

I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the
sort. Don't say it's incumbant

incumbent

on me
because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all
the MVPs (and many others advice) .
But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when
they admit a compatability issue, never admits it's their
fault; instead preferring to say it's between x and y,
someone other than MS and MS.

Heh heh.

SNIP

--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)

"Peter Foldes" wrote in
:

You and Twayne are exactly like Laurel and Hardy. Which one
of you is Hardy is debatable

Both L. and H. were geniuses. Only one suffered from depression,
IIRC.



--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)

"Peter Foldes" wrote in
:

You and Twayne are exactly like Laurel and Hardy. Which one
of you is Hardy is debatable

Both L. and H. were geniuses. Only one suffered from depression,
IIRC.



--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)

lol, it's interesting to see just how long you dummies will continue with
this!


In ,
Unknown typed:
....

There you go again! You just stated 'there are sound technical
reasons'--- I ask for one and you twist and turn.

OK; go read ANY reliable registry cleaner's pages, look them up in the rags
& mags, etc.; there are thousands of resources available to those not too
lazy to look. If you want to argue a point, bring up something that opposes
it; don't just sit there and whine.


Personally, I've said over and over that I'm willing to read and
listen to any verifiable, technically oriented explanations of
what's wrong with registry cleaners.

OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING
A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one posted.

You are a looonnnnngggg ways from being a reliable, technically oriented
explanation of what's wrong with 'them'! If what you say is true, then HOW?
WHEN? Under what circumstances? You do nothing but whine and cry. My
current para stands.


.Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else who
disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide something
useful and convincing, or shut up.

I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the sort. Don't
say it's incumbant on me

Well, I will say it's incumbant on YOU. That para also stands since I've
previously presented the closed minds with plenty of info and that "other"
camp, which includes you, has NEVER made a single bit of technical
information to support your ignorant claims. Millions of users disagree with
you. You said they're no good; so it IS incumbant upon YOU to back it up
logically and sensibly. So follow through or shut up are you only two
logical choices. I know; you have no such thing to support your claims.
You're not the first spewer to not know what you're talking about.

because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all the MVPs
(and many others advice) .

Show me where I have ever PUSHED registry cleaners. And it's not CONTRARY to
"all the MVPs". There are a lot of them who understand, know what the real
world is, and prefer to abide by their rules as set forth when they are
deemed an MVP yearly. Not counting the imposters, BTW, of which there are
still several flopping around in here.

But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when they admit a
compatability issue, never admits it's their fault; instead
preferring to say it's between x and y, someone other than MS and MS.

Once again, each and every time someone posts the damage caused by
running a registry
cleaner you completely ignore it.

If I ignored it, then how did I know about it? Kinda stupid.

Did you read John Johns recent
post? You ignored it!

Yep, I read it. So what?

What the he-- are you a registry cleaner salesman?

If I was, don't you think I'd spam about which one it was? I don't, and
never will because I'd much rather depend on my own research results and
long experience with such apps and many others.
Like I've said many times I am a person who refutes misinformation for the
benefit of the less experienced, and in general when I have the time enjoy
exposing the idiots for who they are and specifically what their
misinformation is. At one time, when they first started spewing this
garbage, I was ignorant enough myself to wonder, and I politely inquired of
them about where I could read more about it so I could bring myself more up
to date. There were, at that point, NO responses, and then to another such
post later on, one supposed MVP actually said I had to believe him "because
he said it was so"! It was shortly after that where the MVP status and use
began to get really shabby and unreliable world-wide and the point where I
initiated my own research and proved them all to be 100% wrong when they
said ALL registry cleaners were "snake oil" and the like.

There are three classes of MVPs: Idiots like you who love to parrot without
knowing anything about it, fakes and imposters, and then the "real" ones who
work hard at answering questions and assisting those who have questions and
are asking for assistance. The latter does not include you.

You know ... if even half of your little lying clique fully believed your
own spew, you would never install a program that places anything in the
registry. Even MS screws things up often enough, so if you had any real
point, you wouldn't be using such things. You'd all still be back in VB6
looking for apps. Hmm, maybe youare, I can 't really know just how stupid
you could be/get.

Regards,

Twayne, defender of misinformation and inaccuracy





"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
Bruce Chambers typed:
Steve Hayes wrote:


So how should you clean the registry, then?




And the correct answer to that question is: "You shouldn't."
There's no sound technical reason for doing so, but abundant
technical reasons for *not* doing so.

He asked HOW, dummy! Also:

You typo'd: There ARE sound technical reasons for doing so, and
abundant technical reasons that the problem most likely lies
elsewhere also. But as usual, your are completely wrong and missed
the chance for a good response.

HTH,

Twayne

lol, it's interesting to see just how long you dummies will continue with
this!


In ,
Unknown typed:
....

There you go again! You just stated 'there are sound technical
reasons'--- I ask for one and you twist and turn.

OK; go read ANY reliable registry cleaner's pages, look them up in the rags
& mags, etc.; there are thousands of resources available to those not too
lazy to look. If you want to argue a point, bring up something that opposes
it; don't just sit there and whine.


Personally, I've said over and over that I'm willing to read and
listen to any verifiable, technically oriented explanations of
what's wrong with registry cleaners.

OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING
A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one posted.

You are a looonnnnngggg ways from being a reliable, technically oriented
explanation of what's wrong with 'them'! If what you say is true, then HOW?
WHEN? Under what circumstances? You do nothing but whine and cry. My
current para stands.


.Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else who
disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide something
useful and convincing, or shut up.

I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the sort. Don't
say it's incumbant on me

Well, I will say it's incumbant on YOU. That para also stands since I've
previously presented the closed minds with plenty of info and that "other"
camp, which includes you, has NEVER made a single bit of technical
information to support your ignorant claims. Millions of users disagree with
you. You said they're no good; so it IS incumbant upon YOU to back it up
logically and sensibly. So follow through or shut up are you only two
logical choices. I know; you have no such thing to support your claims.
You're not the first spewer to not know what you're talking about.

because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all the MVPs
(and many others advice) .

Show me where I have ever PUSHED registry cleaners. And it's not CONTRARY to
"all the MVPs". There are a lot of them who understand, know what the real
world is, and prefer to abide by their rules as set forth when they are
deemed an MVP yearly. Not counting the imposters, BTW, of which there are
still several flopping around in here.

But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when they admit a
compatability issue, never admits it's their fault; instead
preferring to say it's between x and y, someone other than MS and MS.

Once again, each and every time someone posts the damage caused by
running a registry
cleaner you completely ignore it.

If I ignored it, then how did I know about it? Kinda stupid.

Did you read John Johns recent
post? You ignored it!

Yep, I read it. So what?

What the he-- are you a registry cleaner salesman?

If I was, don't you think I'd spam about which one it was? I don't, and
never will because I'd much rather depend on my own research results and
long experience with such apps and many others.
Like I've said many times I am a person who refutes misinformation for the
benefit of the less experienced, and in general when I have the time enjoy
exposing the idiots for who they are and specifically what their
misinformation is. At one time, when they first started spewing this
garbage, I was ignorant enough myself to wonder, and I politely inquired of
them about where I could read more about it so I could bring myself more up
to date. There were, at that point, NO responses, and then to another such
post later on, one supposed MVP actually said I had to believe him "because
he said it was so"! It was shortly after that where the MVP status and use
began to get really shabby and unreliable world-wide and the point where I
initiated my own research and proved them all to be 100% wrong when they
said ALL registry cleaners were "snake oil" and the like.

There are three classes of MVPs: Idiots like you who love to parrot without
knowing anything about it, fakes and imposters, and then the "real" ones who
work hard at answering questions and assisting those who have questions and
are asking for assistance. The latter does not include you.

You know ... if even half of your little lying clique fully believed your
own spew, you would never install a program that places anything in the
registry. Even MS screws things up often enough, so if you had any real
point, you wouldn't be using such things. You'd all still be back in VB6
looking for apps. Hmm, maybe youare, I can 't really know just how stupid
you could be/get.

Regards,

Twayne, defender of misinformation and inaccuracy





"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
Bruce Chambers typed:
Steve Hayes wrote:


So how should you clean the registry, then?




And the correct answer to that question is: "You shouldn't."
There's no sound technical reason for doing so, but abundant
technical reasons for *not* doing so.

He asked HOW, dummy! Also:

You typo'd: There ARE sound technical reasons for doing so, and
abundant technical reasons that the problem most likely lies
elsewhere also. But as usual, your are completely wrong and missed
the chance for a good response.

HTH,

Twayne

Ahh, there we go: A poster who wishes to be taken seriously simply resorts
to namecalling and nothing else. Let's see YOU do something to clear up the
matters here. You've taken the "snake oil" pledge in the past, so maybe YOU
have some actual resources that are more than anecdotal.
You really lower yourself when you do that; if you care about your rep
that is.

HTH,

Twayne




In ,
Peter Foldes typed:
You and Twayne are exactly like Laurel and Hardy. Which one of you is
Hardy is debatable


"thanatoid" wrote in message
...
"Unknown" wrote in
:

Unknown typed:

SNIP

OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING
A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one
posted.

You have not been plonked yet, so YOU give me a solid example.
Toilet Toilet couldn't.

Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else
who disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide
something useful and convincing, or shut up.

I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the
sort. Don't say it's incumbant

incumbent

on me
because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all
the MVPs (and many others advice) .
But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when
they admit a compatability issue, never admits it's their
fault; instead preferring to say it's between x and y,
someone other than MS and MS.

Heh heh.

SNIP

--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)

Ahh, there we go: A poster who wishes to be taken seriously simply resorts
to namecalling and nothing else. Let's see YOU do something to clear up the
matters here. You've taken the "snake oil" pledge in the past, so maybe YOU
have some actual resources that are more than anecdotal.
You really lower yourself when you do that; if you care about your rep
that is.

HTH,

Twayne




In ,
Peter Foldes typed:
You and Twayne are exactly like Laurel and Hardy. Which one of you is
Hardy is debatable


"thanatoid" wrote in message
...
"Unknown" wrote in
:

Unknown typed:

SNIP

OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING
A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one
posted.

You have not been plonked yet, so YOU give me a solid example.
Toilet Toilet couldn't.

Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else
who disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide
something useful and convincing, or shut up.

I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the
sort. Don't say it's incumbant

incumbent

on me
because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all
the MVPs (and many others advice) .
But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when
they admit a compatability issue, never admits it's their
fault; instead preferring to say it's between x and y,
someone other than MS and MS.

Heh heh.

SNIP

--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)

In ,
thanatoid typed:
"Peter Foldes" wrote in
:

You and Twayne are exactly like Laurel and Hardy. Which one
of you is Hardy is debatable

Both L. and H. were geniuses. Only one suffered from depression,
IIRC.

Just watched a documentary on them I got from Netflix. Interesting stuff.
Actually, they were a pretty popular and much loved pair in the heyday.
If they weren't so far ahead of their times they'd have died with monstrous
fortunes.


Regards,

Twayne`

In ,
thanatoid typed:
"Peter Foldes" wrote in
:

You and Twayne are exactly like Laurel and Hardy. Which one
of you is Hardy is debatable

Both L. and H. were geniuses. Only one suffered from depression,
IIRC.

Just watched a documentary on them I got from Netflix. Interesting stuff.
Actually, they were a pretty popular and much loved pair in the heyday.
If they weren't so far ahead of their times they'd have died with monstrous
fortunes.


Regards,

Twayne`

In ,
Unknown typed:
He is in the very lowest of minority since he states there are 'sound
technical reasons
for running a registry cleaner'.

Oh yeah? Let's see you provide ANYTHING to support that. You can't. It
makes for another lie on YOUr part, however.

HTH,

Twayne



"John John - MVP" wrote in message
...
Twayne wrote:
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
thanatoid wrote:
John John - MVP wrote in
:

SNIP

No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems
brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any
help, you simply disappear.

OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet.

I have provided links to the kind of problems that these cleaners
can cause in another post.

At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a purpose. Why?
Because I didn't know any better, everybody was spreading the
same gospel and I believed the vendors of these programs. That
was when I was using Windows 95 on my home machine. I knew next
to nothing about Windows and like everybody else I ran these
cleaners just because that's what folks were doing, I never
noticed any improvement when running them but I ran the cleaners
anyway. After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to an
NT4
network I thought that I should also run registry cleaners on my
NT4 boxes. It didn't take too long for me to realize that the
cleaners did absolutely nothing to improve performance on any of our
machines and that it broke some of our applications. One of my
boxes was up to MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached
to the box couldn't work with that MFC version, it required
MFC40.dll so this dll was kept and registered on the NT4 box. Every
time a cleaner was run it would remove the registration for
this file and the whole Xerox software would fall apart and the
printer would stop working. That was the last straw, these cleaners
did absolutely nothing to maintain the
health of my machines and they did nothing to improve performance,
quite to the
contrary they were breaking our software. By that time I was a bit
more savvy about Windows NT and I came to realize that these
cleaners were really utterly useless and that they were causing
more harm than good so I dumped the whole lot of them. And, oh
yes, I tried more than a few
or them, RegClean, CleanSweep, RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others.
There all the same, they're all utterly useless and a complete
waste of time, Windows NT operating systems don't need registry
cleaning,
running
these cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine is nothing but a
fool's errand.
John

Lots of talk and opinion, but nothing of any import. YOU did this,
YOU did that, YOU did the other thing. And still no definitive
links to any useful information on the subject. You apparently also
seem to think that XP = NT which if far from the case; you need to
brush up on what's relevant and what isn't between the two, at
least if you keep trying to redirect to literal NT as you're doing.
How were they all the same? Details? How did you prove your
cases?

Windows XP is NT5.1 and there is more in common between NT4 and XP
than you will ever know. As for links we have provided many on
different occasion but you simply dismiss them all as 'anecdotal' so
don't ask for anymore links, with you it's only a waste of time. Often
times *you* have been asked to supply links with unbiased and
concrete proof that registry cleaners actually improve performance
and not once have you ever been able to supply any such unbiased
information, all that you have ever been able to do is supply
advertising materials from the sellers of these useless programs. You are
in the minority here with your cleaners, and for a good
reason, most of the others here are not brainwashed by snake oil
salesmen. John

In ,
Unknown typed:
He is in the very lowest of minority since he states there are 'sound
technical reasons
for running a registry cleaner'.

Oh yeah? Let's see you provide ANYTHING to support that. You can't. It
makes for another lie on YOUr part, however.

HTH,

Twayne



"John John - MVP" wrote in message
...
Twayne wrote:
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
thanatoid wrote:
John John - MVP wrote in
:

SNIP

No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems
brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any
help, you simply disappear.

OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet.

I have provided links to the kind of problems that these cleaners
can cause in another post.

At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a purpose. Why?
Because I didn't know any better, everybody was spreading the
same gospel and I believed the vendors of these programs. That
was when I was using Windows 95 on my home machine. I knew next
to nothing about Windows and like everybody else I ran these
cleaners just because that's what folks were doing, I never
noticed any improvement when running them but I ran the cleaners
anyway. After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to an
NT4
network I thought that I should also run registry cleaners on my
NT4 boxes. It didn't take too long for me to realize that the
cleaners did absolutely nothing to improve performance on any of our
machines and that it broke some of our applications. One of my
boxes was up to MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached
to the box couldn't work with that MFC version, it required
MFC40.dll so this dll was kept and registered on the NT4 box. Every
time a cleaner was run it would remove the registration for
this file and the whole Xerox software would fall apart and the
printer would stop working. That was the last straw, these cleaners
did absolutely nothing to maintain the
health of my machines and they did nothing to improve performance,
quite to the
contrary they were breaking our software. By that time I was a bit
more savvy about Windows NT and I came to realize that these
cleaners were really utterly useless and that they were causing
more harm than good so I dumped the whole lot of them. And, oh
yes, I tried more than a few
or them, RegClean, CleanSweep, RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others.
There all the same, they're all utterly useless and a complete
waste of time, Windows NT operating systems don't need registry
cleaning,
running
these cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine is nothing but a
fool's errand.
John

Lots of talk and opinion, but nothing of any import. YOU did this,
YOU did that, YOU did the other thing. And still no definitive
links to any useful information on the subject. You apparently also
seem to think that XP = NT which if far from the case; you need to
brush up on what's relevant and what isn't between the two, at
least if you keep trying to redirect to literal NT as you're doing.
How were they all the same? Details? How did you prove your
cases?

Windows XP is NT5.1 and there is more in common between NT4 and XP
than you will ever know. As for links we have provided many on
different occasion but you simply dismiss them all as 'anecdotal' so
don't ask for anymore links, with you it's only a waste of time. Often
times *you* have been asked to supply links with unbiased and
concrete proof that registry cleaners actually improve performance
and not once have you ever been able to supply any such unbiased
information, all that you have ever been able to do is supply
advertising materials from the sellers of these useless programs. You are
in the minority here with your cleaners, and for a good
reason, most of the others here are not brainwashed by snake oil
salesmen. John

In ,
Shenan Stanley typed:
snipped

....

Seriously? That's the responses and what this has come to?

You want proof you never did something instead of providing proof you
did something at least a single time which completely resolves that
argument?
Go ahead - you can answer that you shouldn't have to prove anything
and stomp your feet and hold your breath and turn blue - because that
is what this conversation has [de]evolved to - or you could prove
yourself and give one link, one solitary web link to one time where
you, and I will quote "unknown" here, "offered answers to someone who
damaged their system by a registry cleaner".

In the whole 'registry cleaner' argument - I could care less in the
end. If someone has the skills to use something and know which
things are useful as tools vs. those that are not - more power to
them. If someone does not and they decide to dive headfirst into
something they don't understand and end up drowning - more power to
them. Doesn't matter if it is registry cleaners, registry editors,
antimalware applications, antivirus applications, duplicate file
finders, random advice from people they do not know or whatever - if
someone is willing to do it - I am not going to stand in their way. I will
give them my experience and I will warn them that if they are
not truly prepared - things can and likely will go wrong (get worse.)

However - stop right there - I do not care - it's their decision. I
will not push them into anything overly complicated or that should
not be done without precise instructions followed to the letter or
things could go wrong. I am careful about what I ask people to do to
their system - keeping it simple and understanding that sometimes -
it is better to teach someone how to backup and go to an expert than
how to start going through something they may never understand and
might slip up on - especially given it is seldom an
'end-of-the-world/last-hope-of-success' scenario.
In any case - I digressed - back to the only reason I responded. This is
why these posts get so long and how come it usually ends up
just a couple of people left in them (usually the same people over
and over) - it breaks down to playground (under the age of 8) antics
and taunts. "I know you are, but what am I?" and instead of one or
the other producing the obvious, easy and simple solution that could
end one thread of the conversation - it continues to break down with,
"I'm rubber and you're glue..."
Twayne, if you want to end that part of the discussion - once and for
all - give the single link to answer the question. One Google Groups
link or Microsoft Social link or whatever. That's all it takes to
counter a 'never' - just one. Take the high road. You may think,
might even say (maybe not now that I mention it), I don't have to
prove anything (it's a matter of principle, whatever...) and you may
be right - but it takes only one to oust a 'never' argument. Failure
to produce that one is not the best response unless you stop
responding ever again and just ignore the other (even then - it
doesn't produce the true results you might desire.)
*shrug*

In the end - I still do not care. It's a newsgroup argument over
something petty and that didn't matter 20 years ago and might not
matter 20 years from now. It's just something to do to fill the gap
of time between now and then. ;-P

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP

Shenan,

While I laud you for a very sensible post and don't disagree directly at all
with anything in it, and I do recall where you stand (but it's irrelevent to
this post), I'll offer the following excuses (only) as an FYI:

-- I don't hide of change nicks; so it's easy to bypass my posts.
-- I despise misinformation particularly when it's relayed to the uniniated
and inexperienced user.
-- Long ago I actually asked these guys (don't recall you being here at that
time; not sure) to further explain their reasoning in order to better
educate myself. I've noticed at least three such attempts in my archives.
The first time got no responses. The second time there was a restatement of
their "opinion". The third time I actually have a mail that says I should
believe them because he "told me so" as an MVP.
It was at that point I began my research and kept logs permanently, all
archived. Their arguements today, of the initiators, are unchanged from the
initial ones except it took the one a few months to discover his favorite
descriptor. Then the originator and a couple others started using
boilerplate responses, to which I addressed each one I came across.
-- I disappear at times, simply because I get busy and no time for such
foolishness and only bother to read actual responses from those I know have
the wherewithal, OR I occasionally don't even have time for the computer for
anything more than business reasons.
-- I NEVER initiate the topics with one exception in time when I posted a
few links to relevant data for some newbies I knew were following the
thread.
-- I NEVER initiate a new e-mail advancing or otherwise extolling the
virtues of any apps.
-- I do derive a certain amount of entertainment from watching them squirm
like fish on a drydock as they attempt to convince me otherwise or
occasionally to maintain their credibility.
-- I NEVER target MVPs; the get the same treatment as anyone else with the
exception that I may mention occasionally that they should know better and
may need to read their status requirements and how they achieved their
status. The bast majority of MVPs I know are excellent and really know their
stated areas well. It's only a tiny, very small group who like to call this
home who are problematic. I've avoided ever including any negative comments
about them, or anything at all, really, that could be tracked to an MVP. I
know what that can do to a group and though it's gotten strained the last
few years, there are still several excellent MVPs operating.
-- I NEVER do searched to locate the other haunts of the miscreants spewing
misinformation. I only respond to such crap if/when I come across it.
-- On this group at least, I find the largest assembly of closed minds and
the most ignorance professed by them of any other group or site I visit.
Thus, they are worthy of being called out and exposed.
-- And of course, when time permits, it is entertaining to watch them squirm
and to see just how long they'll continue a thread that no one is reading
any longer.

So, while I do apologize to you and the others whom I'm sure are sick of it
too, I'll keep responding to the misinformation .
At the same time I DID hear you, and because it's rather boring at the
moment, I've spent way too much time with a thread that no longer has any
semblence to its original purpose. This one became so automatic to me I
continued on past the point of relevence to the misinformation. For that I
sincerely apologize, and will pay more attention in the future.
However, I will still continue to expose misinformationists and those who
may attempt to in any way pursuade people to not believe the truth in spirit
if not in words.

Twayne

In ,
Shenan Stanley typed:
snipped

....

Seriously? That's the responses and what this has come to?

You want proof you never did something instead of providing proof you
did something at least a single time which completely resolves that
argument?
Go ahead - you can answer that you shouldn't have to prove anything
and stomp your feet and hold your breath and turn blue - because that
is what this conversation has [de]evolved to - or you could prove
yourself and give one link, one solitary web link to one time where
you, and I will quote "unknown" here, "offered answers to someone who
damaged their system by a registry cleaner".

In the whole 'registry cleaner' argument - I could care less in the
end. If someone has the skills to use something and know which
things are useful as tools vs. those that are not - more power to
them. If someone does not and they decide to dive headfirst into
something they don't understand and end up drowning - more power to
them. Doesn't matter if it is registry cleaners, registry editors,
antimalware applications, antivirus applications, duplicate file
finders, random advice from people they do not know or whatever - if
someone is willing to do it - I am not going to stand in their way. I will
give them my experience and I will warn them that if they are
not truly prepared - things can and likely will go wrong (get worse.)

However - stop right there - I do not care - it's their decision. I
will not push them into anything overly complicated or that should
not be done without precise instructions followed to the letter or
things could go wrong. I am careful about what I ask people to do to
their system - keeping it simple and understanding that sometimes -
it is better to teach someone how to backup and go to an expert than
how to start going through something they may never understand and
might slip up on - especially given it is seldom an
'end-of-the-world/last-hope-of-success' scenario.
In any case - I digressed - back to the only reason I responded. This is
why these posts get so long and how come it usually ends up
just a couple of people left in them (usually the same people over
and over) - it breaks down to playground (under the age of 8) antics
and taunts. "I know you are, but what am I?" and instead of one or
the other producing the obvious, easy and simple solution that could
end one thread of the conversation - it continues to break down with,
"I'm rubber and you're glue..."
Twayne, if you want to end that part of the discussion - once and for
all - give the single link to answer the question. One Google Groups
link or Microsoft Social link or whatever. That's all it takes to
counter a 'never' - just one. Take the high road. You may think,
might even say (maybe not now that I mention it), I don't have to
prove anything (it's a matter of principle, whatever...) and you may
be right - but it takes only one to oust a 'never' argument. Failure
to produce that one is not the best response unless you stop
responding ever again and just ignore the other (even then - it
doesn't produce the true results you might desire.)
*shrug*

In the end - I still do not care. It's a newsgroup argument over
something petty and that didn't matter 20 years ago and might not
matter 20 years from now. It's just something to do to fill the gap
of time between now and then. ;-P

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP

Shenan,

While I laud you for a very sensible post and don't disagree directly at all
with anything in it, and I do recall where you stand (but it's irrelevent to
this post), I'll offer the following excuses (only) as an FYI:

-- I don't hide of change nicks; so it's easy to bypass my posts.
-- I despise misinformation particularly when it's relayed to the uniniated
and inexperienced user.
-- Long ago I actually asked these guys (don't recall you being here at that
time; not sure) to further explain their reasoning in order to better
educate myself. I've noticed at least three such attempts in my archives.
The first time got no responses. The second time there was a restatement of
their "opinion". The third time I actually have a mail that says I should
believe them because he "told me so" as an MVP.
It was at that point I began my research and kept logs permanently, all
archived. Their arguements today, of the initiators, are unchanged from the
initial ones except it took the one a few months to discover his favorite
descriptor. Then the originator and a couple others started using
boilerplate responses, to which I addressed each one I came across.
-- I disappear at times, simply because I get busy and no time for such
foolishness and only bother to read actual responses from those I know have
the wherewithal, OR I occasionally don't even have time for the computer for
anything more than business reasons.
-- I NEVER initiate the topics with one exception in time when I posted a
few links to relevant data for some newbies I knew were following the
thread.
-- I NEVER initiate a new e-mail advancing or otherwise extolling the
virtues of any apps.
-- I do derive a certain amount of entertainment from watching them squirm
like fish on a drydock as they attempt to convince me otherwise or
occasionally to maintain their credibility.
-- I NEVER target MVPs; the get the same treatment as anyone else with the
exception that I may mention occasionally that they should know better and
may need to read their status requirements and how they achieved their
status. The bast majority of MVPs I know are excellent and really know their
stated areas well. It's only a tiny, very small group who like to call this
home who are problematic. I've avoided ever including any negative comments
about them, or anything at all, really, that could be tracked to an MVP. I
know what that can do to a group and though it's gotten strained the last
few years, there are still several excellent MVPs operating.
-- I NEVER do searched to locate the other haunts of the miscreants spewing
misinformation. I only respond to such crap if/when I come across it.
-- On this group at least, I find the largest assembly of closed minds and
the most ignorance professed by them of any other group or site I visit.
Thus, they are worthy of being called out and exposed.
-- And of course, when time permits, it is entertaining to watch them squirm
and to see just how long they'll continue a thread that no one is reading
any longer.

So, while I do apologize to you and the others whom I'm sure are sick of it
too, I'll keep responding to the misinformation .
At the same time I DID hear you, and because it's rather boring at the
moment, I've spent way too much time with a thread that no longer has any
semblence to its original purpose. This one became so automatic to me I
continued on past the point of relevence to the misinformation. For that I
sincerely apologize, and will pay more attention in the future.
However, I will still continue to expose misinformationists and those who
may attempt to in any way pursuade people to not believe the truth in spirit
if not in words.

Twayne