Registry Cleaners

Unknown wrote:
You're an ass on wartless progress.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
you're a wart on the ass of progress.

Thank you! That's quite a concession coming from you.

Twayne wrote:
John John - MVP wrote:
He will never show you proof, the best he has ever been able to do is
quote or supply links to advertising material from outfits who sell
these useless products. We do at times see posts here with tales of
woe from people who are having problems after using these cleaners
but to no one's surprise Twayne is no where to be seen when people
need help repairing the damages done.

Reference one.

How about this one:

http://groups.google.com/group/micro...33372c870ea74#

Less than 3 or 4 weeks ago. Where were you? You're constantly touting
yourself as an expert with the registry and these useless cleaners, why
didn't you offer any help?

Anytime registry cleaners are mentioned you go into one of your
trademarked rants and at just about the same time as Peg (above) was
having problems you were engaged in another one of your rants:

http://groups.google.com/group/micro...ners&lnk=o l&

You were around and actively perusing the groups ready to pounce at any
posts where registry cleaners were questioned. You saw Peg's post, but
yet you remained silent. Why? Because as usual you decided to
conveniently hide, as soon as users report problems with these useless
programs you disappear.

John

Twayne wrote:
John John - MVP wrote:
He will never show you proof, the best he has ever been able to do is
quote or supply links to advertising material from outfits who sell
these useless products. We do at times see posts here with tales of
woe from people who are having problems after using these cleaners
but to no one's surprise Twayne is no where to be seen when people
need help repairing the damages done.

Reference one.

How about this one:

http://groups.google.com/group/micro...33372c870ea74#

Less than 3 or 4 weeks ago. Where were you? You're constantly touting
yourself as an expert with the registry and these useless cleaners, why
didn't you offer any help?

Anytime registry cleaners are mentioned you go into one of your
trademarked rants and at just about the same time as Peg (above) was
having problems you were engaged in another one of your rants:

http://groups.google.com/group/micro...ners&lnk=o l&

You were around and actively perusing the groups ready to pounce at any
posts where registry cleaners were questioned. You saw Peg's post, but
yet you remained silent. Why? Because as usual you decided to
conveniently hide, as soon as users report problems with these useless
programs you disappear.

John

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

...

As long as Windows 9x conventions are applied to Windows NT and
its successors, the myths regarding how Win 2000, XP, Vista and
Win 7 process the registry, fonts and everything else which could
be a problem in Win 9x will continue.

Myths; good choice, because people applying 9x conventions to 2k &
XP is just that. You're good at rationalizing with whatever
thought may occur to you but that doesn't make it factual. IME
the majority of people here without closed minds see the situation
in a clearer and more logical sense than you can. You have mired
yourself into a
corner with your own XP myths and proclamations made all over the
'net and now you feel that you cannot admit reality because it
would make you look less than perfect. In actual fact, you know
the situation as it really is but don't dare to admit the reality,
reliability and capabilities of today's registry cleaners. You've
even tried a few tiny concessions here and there, like cc comments,
but ended up conflicting with your own words and rather than appear
to have opened your mind a crack, securely locked it down again.

Windows NT and its successors ignore orphaned entries. They may
fall over if they come across active corrupted entries, but
registry cleaners do not fix this type of problem..

So does VB and Python, and PHP and a plethora of other coded
works. You are trying to imply (which is all you ever do in your
rationalized world) that "orphaned" entries never cause any kind of
impact ever in any way, and that is patently untrue. You think
that because a key/whatever is never called (and orphans often DO
get called, BTW, by other orphans in some situations) it costs zero
time. You're trying to imply that the registry is only READ, and
that it never executes an instruction or command. IMO your
understanding of the registry's internal workings are actually
abysmally deficient but good enough for you to grab onto single
events and then try to build those into all-encompassing
rationalizations to push onto what you consider your "minions". You
can occasionally see a tree in the forest but you never
address more then one tree and I doubt you ever even notice there
is a forest there or your attitudes would be different. Now, an
"active"
corrupted entry, whatever you mean by that, is not
usually going to make the thing "fall". The vast majority of the
time, it's going to result in an error message.
You then imply that registry cleaners do not fix that "type of
problem", but often they do/will, because the cleaner WILL report
it not able to execute and offer the normal various possibilities
for repair. Thanks to the robustness of the registry, it seldom
ever occurs, but when it does a decent registry cleaner will point
it out for the user. I only recall that ever happening once, long
ago, but I believe I have seen it happen. In that case it wasn't a
single
corruption; an entire key was corrupted and made no sense in any
way. In that case I seriously suspect it was corruption that
occurred during the write TO the registry by an installed program;
otherwise it wouldn't have been so neatly confined as it was. The
registry is a very robust thing and it's actually hard to make
it 'fall' on purpose. In fact, many have seen the results of
trying to remove something the system needed when the deleted
entry is simply re-created by the system. Many parts of it you
couldn't
corrupt if you wanted to. Even adding unallowed data often won't
hurt anything. Enter a 4 where the only possibilities are 0 or 1,
and you'll get back a 0 next time you look at it!

Add to that the fact that all you guys pushing all these myths have
NEVER provided a single authoritative piece of information to
support your myths, and it pretty well wraps up your credibility on
the subject. Even MS has dabbled with registry cleaners for along
time and still are doing so, so obviously they don't buy the "will
trash" and "imminent..." this & that attitudes you try to push.
You guys need to stick with subjects you can verify, clarify,
reproduce and otherwise use factual data for. The lack of anything
like that has gone on for so long now that anything that any of you
did decide to provide would likely be suspect or it would have been
posted long ago. Anyone can write an article on um,ha and then
come here and recommend that article as "proof" that what they say
is true; I always have to giggle when I see that happen. It has been
as serious hit on the credibility of the web site, not to mention
the nearly current unrecognized status of being an MVP as some
are. I thank you for this opportunity to once more expose the
myths being pushed by a small ring of loud and noisy closed minds
here and on a few other groups.

HTH,

Twayne`








Finished?

Nah, I can go on almost forever when people make the stupid and
misinformed comments you do at times. I choose what I do and when I
do it, so ... you takes yer chances!


I don't condone the use of registry cleaners because the type of
person who gets taken in by claims like yours is also the type of
person who may not always make the right decisions as to what the
registry cleaner removes. I have seen enough instances where a
registry cleaner has either had no effect whatsoever, partially
clobbered a system, and in some instances where a system has been
brought down completely.

Huhh, that's so old it has stuff growing on it. Where are the
mechanisms and outcomes of any of those documented? They aren't. They
simply don't do what you claim, regardless of how many times
you say it. You've never experienced a crash due to a registry
cleaner if it was a reputable one, and you've never seen one that
couldn't recover from a mis-removed item either. In addition you
have nothing but hear-say to back up anything you said or say here
or any of the other places you wish to confuse people with.


You, on the other hand, embark on personal tirades in your defense
of registry cleaners, which makes me think that you have a vested
interest in one of the registry cleaners presently available.

I've been perfectly honest and above-board in every comment I've
ever made about registry cleaners. You know that but it offends
your ego, doesn't it? That's part of the pleasure of contantly
correcting you. Anything that could resemble a "tirade" from me,
you'll notice, is also in response to a "tirade" made by another. They
are usually inline, point by point comments, in fact.
Yes, I do have a vested interest in more than one or the registry
cleaners presently available. My vested interest is in their use
when it's called for, and clearly and honestly discussing what is
reasonable and what is not, unlike anything you have said in a very
long time. This post of yours would classify as a "tirade". My
response to it more lends itself to the, well, response to a tirade.
Misinformation and myths such as you generate belong in, well, myths
and misinfomational newsgroups, not where thinking people have to
put up with you. You are
the ONLY person in these newsgroups who defends the use of registry
cleaners to the bitter end, yet you have consistently failed to
present ANY proof of your claims.

Another old saw, and one that is not true either. You're PO'd
because I won't REPOST them so you can tear them apart. Unlike you,
I've posted plenty of information. In fact, ratio-wise, if you
calculated the ratio of my information to yours, the result would be
infinity since a number cannot be divided by zero.

Thanks again for the opportunity; it was enjoyable although nothing
new was entered. You just spout the same misinformation over and
over, with nothing else. Most everyone knows what you are now. You
think that persistance will win out but there is one thing that will
always trump persistance; that's being right.

Twayne






You have not produced any proof re the effectiveness of registry
cleaners used on Win 2000 and above because there are *non* in
existence. Apart from you, the only claims made to the good of
registry cleaners are the ads for them..

Yes, I have produced "proof". That's the second time I've said this.
There are even a couple of white papers "in existence"; I just checked to
be sure they're still there. Learn how to use Google.


So it is just YOUR word against many others..

So where is their "proof" if that's what's required? Where's yours?





Post the links..

--

Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

...

As long as Windows 9x conventions are applied to Windows NT and
its successors, the myths regarding how Win 2000, XP, Vista and
Win 7 process the registry, fonts and everything else which could
be a problem in Win 9x will continue.

Myths; good choice, because people applying 9x conventions to 2k &
XP is just that. You're good at rationalizing with whatever
thought may occur to you but that doesn't make it factual. IME
the majority of people here without closed minds see the situation
in a clearer and more logical sense than you can. You have mired
yourself into a
corner with your own XP myths and proclamations made all over the
'net and now you feel that you cannot admit reality because it
would make you look less than perfect. In actual fact, you know
the situation as it really is but don't dare to admit the reality,
reliability and capabilities of today's registry cleaners. You've
even tried a few tiny concessions here and there, like cc comments,
but ended up conflicting with your own words and rather than appear
to have opened your mind a crack, securely locked it down again.

Windows NT and its successors ignore orphaned entries. They may
fall over if they come across active corrupted entries, but
registry cleaners do not fix this type of problem..

So does VB and Python, and PHP and a plethora of other coded
works. You are trying to imply (which is all you ever do in your
rationalized world) that "orphaned" entries never cause any kind of
impact ever in any way, and that is patently untrue. You think
that because a key/whatever is never called (and orphans often DO
get called, BTW, by other orphans in some situations) it costs zero
time. You're trying to imply that the registry is only READ, and
that it never executes an instruction or command. IMO your
understanding of the registry's internal workings are actually
abysmally deficient but good enough for you to grab onto single
events and then try to build those into all-encompassing
rationalizations to push onto what you consider your "minions". You
can occasionally see a tree in the forest but you never
address more then one tree and I doubt you ever even notice there
is a forest there or your attitudes would be different. Now, an
"active"
corrupted entry, whatever you mean by that, is not
usually going to make the thing "fall". The vast majority of the
time, it's going to result in an error message.
You then imply that registry cleaners do not fix that "type of
problem", but often they do/will, because the cleaner WILL report
it not able to execute and offer the normal various possibilities
for repair. Thanks to the robustness of the registry, it seldom
ever occurs, but when it does a decent registry cleaner will point
it out for the user. I only recall that ever happening once, long
ago, but I believe I have seen it happen. In that case it wasn't a
single
corruption; an entire key was corrupted and made no sense in any
way. In that case I seriously suspect it was corruption that
occurred during the write TO the registry by an installed program;
otherwise it wouldn't have been so neatly confined as it was. The
registry is a very robust thing and it's actually hard to make
it 'fall' on purpose. In fact, many have seen the results of
trying to remove something the system needed when the deleted
entry is simply re-created by the system. Many parts of it you
couldn't
corrupt if you wanted to. Even adding unallowed data often won't
hurt anything. Enter a 4 where the only possibilities are 0 or 1,
and you'll get back a 0 next time you look at it!

Add to that the fact that all you guys pushing all these myths have
NEVER provided a single authoritative piece of information to
support your myths, and it pretty well wraps up your credibility on
the subject. Even MS has dabbled with registry cleaners for along
time and still are doing so, so obviously they don't buy the "will
trash" and "imminent..." this & that attitudes you try to push.
You guys need to stick with subjects you can verify, clarify,
reproduce and otherwise use factual data for. The lack of anything
like that has gone on for so long now that anything that any of you
did decide to provide would likely be suspect or it would have been
posted long ago. Anyone can write an article on um,ha and then
come here and recommend that article as "proof" that what they say
is true; I always have to giggle when I see that happen. It has been
as serious hit on the credibility of the web site, not to mention
the nearly current unrecognized status of being an MVP as some
are. I thank you for this opportunity to once more expose the
myths being pushed by a small ring of loud and noisy closed minds
here and on a few other groups.

HTH,

Twayne`








Finished?

Nah, I can go on almost forever when people make the stupid and
misinformed comments you do at times. I choose what I do and when I
do it, so ... you takes yer chances!


I don't condone the use of registry cleaners because the type of
person who gets taken in by claims like yours is also the type of
person who may not always make the right decisions as to what the
registry cleaner removes. I have seen enough instances where a
registry cleaner has either had no effect whatsoever, partially
clobbered a system, and in some instances where a system has been
brought down completely.

Huhh, that's so old it has stuff growing on it. Where are the
mechanisms and outcomes of any of those documented? They aren't. They
simply don't do what you claim, regardless of how many times
you say it. You've never experienced a crash due to a registry
cleaner if it was a reputable one, and you've never seen one that
couldn't recover from a mis-removed item either. In addition you
have nothing but hear-say to back up anything you said or say here
or any of the other places you wish to confuse people with.


You, on the other hand, embark on personal tirades in your defense
of registry cleaners, which makes me think that you have a vested
interest in one of the registry cleaners presently available.

I've been perfectly honest and above-board in every comment I've
ever made about registry cleaners. You know that but it offends
your ego, doesn't it? That's part of the pleasure of contantly
correcting you. Anything that could resemble a "tirade" from me,
you'll notice, is also in response to a "tirade" made by another. They
are usually inline, point by point comments, in fact.
Yes, I do have a vested interest in more than one or the registry
cleaners presently available. My vested interest is in their use
when it's called for, and clearly and honestly discussing what is
reasonable and what is not, unlike anything you have said in a very
long time. This post of yours would classify as a "tirade". My
response to it more lends itself to the, well, response to a tirade.
Misinformation and myths such as you generate belong in, well, myths
and misinfomational newsgroups, not where thinking people have to
put up with you. You are
the ONLY person in these newsgroups who defends the use of registry
cleaners to the bitter end, yet you have consistently failed to
present ANY proof of your claims.

Another old saw, and one that is not true either. You're PO'd
because I won't REPOST them so you can tear them apart. Unlike you,
I've posted plenty of information. In fact, ratio-wise, if you
calculated the ratio of my information to yours, the result would be
infinity since a number cannot be divided by zero.

Thanks again for the opportunity; it was enjoyable although nothing
new was entered. You just spout the same misinformation over and
over, with nothing else. Most everyone knows what you are now. You
think that persistance will win out but there is one thing that will
always trump persistance; that's being right.

Twayne






You have not produced any proof re the effectiveness of registry
cleaners used on Win 2000 and above because there are *non* in
existence. Apart from you, the only claims made to the good of
registry cleaners are the ads for them..

Yes, I have produced "proof". That's the second time I've said this.
There are even a couple of white papers "in existence"; I just checked to
be sure they're still there. Learn how to use Google.


So it is just YOUR word against many others..

So where is their "proof" if that's what's required? Where's yours?





Post the links..

--

Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

I referenced two a few weeks ago but you simply ignored them.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
John John - MVP wrote:
He will never show you proof, the best he has ever been able to do is
quote or supply links to advertising material from outfits who sell
these useless products. We do at times see posts here with tales of
woe from people who are having problems after using these cleaners
but to no one's surprise Twayne is no where to be seen when people
need help repairing the damages done.

Reference one.



John

Peter Foldes wrote:
Twayne

I do have to disagree with you on this issue. Show me proof on a hard
copy to those facts. Have you seen these Registry Tool issues that
were posted by a few OP's lately saying that their Reg Tools messed
up their OS. One even could not boot after using a Registry Cleaning
Tool. Some posters even remarked that you did not show up in those
threads
because you were then going to be proven wrong. I was also one that
said the same.

Automated Reg tools in the hand of persons that do not know computers
and what the Registry does have no business using these snake oil
remedies My take on this and period

I referenced two a few weeks ago but you simply ignored them.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
John John - MVP wrote:
He will never show you proof, the best he has ever been able to do is
quote or supply links to advertising material from outfits who sell
these useless products. We do at times see posts here with tales of
woe from people who are having problems after using these cleaners
but to no one's surprise Twayne is no where to be seen when people
need help repairing the damages done.

Reference one.



John

Peter Foldes wrote:
Twayne

I do have to disagree with you on this issue. Show me proof on a hard
copy to those facts. Have you seen these Registry Tool issues that
were posted by a few OP's lately saying that their Reg Tools messed
up their OS. One even could not boot after using a Registry Cleaning
Tool. Some posters even remarked that you did not show up in those
threads
because you were then going to be proven wrong. I was also one that
said the same.

Automated Reg tools in the hand of persons that do not know computers
and what the Registry does have no business using these snake oil
remedies My take on this and period

That is precisely the ranting and raving you provide in an attempt to
get people to believe your nonsense on registry cleaners.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Back that up with facts not idle chatter.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...

I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted.





He can't. He's never been able to produce any facts when asked to
support his claims. I know, I've ask often enough.

In comparison to what you've provided, I have provided infinitely more
evidence and even machine-generated results of several runs in the past.
But you have zero, zip, nothing. Not a shred of anything but opinions of
a small circle of egotists and narcissists IMO.

Your also still continue your myopic boilerplates about a single item,
coming nowhere near to the overall intent and content of a registry
cleaner. From that I long ago deduced that you have no idea what you're
talking about and no inkling of the overall picture, nor of anything
that's available for registry cleaners. You're probably so expert you'd
download a spyware generator instead of an actual registry cleaner because
you have no idea who's who in the industry, based on your past comments.
You are one of the better rationalizers on the 'net but we all know how
valuable that kind of person is. If it weren't for boilerplate, I'm not
sure you'd ever be able to come up with a fresh thought to post about
anything, you know that? Otherwise, you'd have reasoning and good logic
behind your proclamations, not simply parrot the same vague stuff over and
over. I haven't seen a fresh online thought from you in what is probably
years now. I think you're incapable of it.

Thanks again, Bruce!

Twayne



Twayne

That is precisely the ranting and raving you provide in an attempt to
get people to believe your nonsense on registry cleaners.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Back that up with facts not idle chatter.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...

I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted.





He can't. He's never been able to produce any facts when asked to
support his claims. I know, I've ask often enough.

In comparison to what you've provided, I have provided infinitely more
evidence and even machine-generated results of several runs in the past.
But you have zero, zip, nothing. Not a shred of anything but opinions of
a small circle of egotists and narcissists IMO.

Your also still continue your myopic boilerplates about a single item,
coming nowhere near to the overall intent and content of a registry
cleaner. From that I long ago deduced that you have no idea what you're
talking about and no inkling of the overall picture, nor of anything
that's available for registry cleaners. You're probably so expert you'd
download a spyware generator instead of an actual registry cleaner because
you have no idea who's who in the industry, based on your past comments.
You are one of the better rationalizers on the 'net but we all know how
valuable that kind of person is. If it weren't for boilerplate, I'm not
sure you'd ever be able to come up with a fresh thought to post about
anything, you know that? Otherwise, you'd have reasoning and good logic
behind your proclamations, not simply parrot the same vague stuff over and
over. I haven't seen a fresh online thought from you in what is probably
years now. I think you're incapable of it.

Thanks again, Bruce!

Twayne



Twayne

I'm getting tired of this! I asked a question to which several people have
responded and then the whole thing descends into a quagmire of some people
trying to undermine the integrity of others and those people defending
themselves. And this is not the first timer this has happened. How am I
(or anyone else) supposed to treat any response as worth anything at all?
(rhetorical)

Bill Ridgeway

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
That is precisely the ranting and raving you provide in an attempt to
get people to believe your nonsense on registry cleaners.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Back that up with facts not idle chatter.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...

I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted.





He can't. He's never been able to produce any facts when asked to
support his claims. I know, I've ask often enough.

In comparison to what you've provided, I have provided infinitely more
evidence and even machine-generated results of several runs in the past.
But you have zero, zip, nothing. Not a shred of anything but opinions of
a small circle of egotists and narcissists IMO.

Your also still continue your myopic boilerplates about a single item,
coming nowhere near to the overall intent and content of a registry
cleaner. From that I long ago deduced that you have no idea what you're
talking about and no inkling of the overall picture, nor of anything
that's available for registry cleaners. You're probably so expert you'd
download a spyware generator instead of an actual registry cleaner
because you have no idea who's who in the industry, based on your past
comments.
You are one of the better rationalizers on the 'net but we all know how
valuable that kind of person is. If it weren't for boilerplate, I'm not
sure you'd ever be able to come up with a fresh thought to post about
anything, you know that? Otherwise, you'd have reasoning and good logic
behind your proclamations, not simply parrot the same vague stuff over
and over. I haven't seen a fresh online thought from you in what is
probably years now. I think you're incapable of it.

Thanks again, Bruce!

Twayne

I'm getting tired of this! I asked a question to which several people have
responded and then the whole thing descends into a quagmire of some people
trying to undermine the integrity of others and those people defending
themselves. And this is not the first timer this has happened. How am I
(or anyone else) supposed to treat any response as worth anything at all?
(rhetorical)

Bill Ridgeway

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
That is precisely the ranting and raving you provide in an attempt to
get people to believe your nonsense on registry cleaners.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Back that up with facts not idle chatter.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...

I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted.





He can't. He's never been able to produce any facts when asked to
support his claims. I know, I've ask often enough.

In comparison to what you've provided, I have provided infinitely more
evidence and even machine-generated results of several runs in the past.
But you have zero, zip, nothing. Not a shred of anything but opinions of
a small circle of egotists and narcissists IMO.

Your also still continue your myopic boilerplates about a single item,
coming nowhere near to the overall intent and content of a registry
cleaner. From that I long ago deduced that you have no idea what you're
talking about and no inkling of the overall picture, nor of anything
that's available for registry cleaners. You're probably so expert you'd
download a spyware generator instead of an actual registry cleaner
because you have no idea who's who in the industry, based on your past
comments.
You are one of the better rationalizers on the 'net but we all know how
valuable that kind of person is. If it weren't for boilerplate, I'm not
sure you'd ever be able to come up with a fresh thought to post about
anything, you know that? Otherwise, you'd have reasoning and good logic
behind your proclamations, not simply parrot the same vague stuff over
and over. I haven't seen a fresh online thought from you in what is
probably years now. I think you're incapable of it.

Thanks again, Bruce!

Twayne

Welcome to newsgroups! ;-)
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Bill Ridgeway wrote:
I'm getting tired of this! I asked a question to which several people have
responded and then the whole thing descends into a quagmire of some people
trying to undermine the integrity of others and those people defending
themselves. And this is not the first timer this has happened. How am I
(or anyone else) supposed to treat any response as worth anything at all?
(rhetorical)

Bill Ridgeway

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
That is precisely the ranting and raving you provide in an attempt to
get people to believe your nonsense on registry cleaners.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Back that up with facts not idle chatter.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted.



He can't. He's never been able to produce any facts when asked to
support his claims. I know, I've ask often enough.
In comparison to what you've provided, I have provided infinitely more
evidence and even machine-generated results of several runs in the past.
But you have zero, zip, nothing. Not a shred of anything but opinions of
a small circle of egotists and narcissists IMO.

Your also still continue your myopic boilerplates about a single item,
coming nowhere near to the overall intent and content of a registry
cleaner. From that I long ago deduced that you have no idea what you're
talking about and no inkling of the overall picture, nor of anything
that's available for registry cleaners. You're probably so expert you'd
download a spyware generator instead of an actual registry cleaner
because you have no idea who's who in the industry, based on your past
comments.
You are one of the better rationalizers on the 'net but we all know how
valuable that kind of person is. If it weren't for boilerplate, I'm not
sure you'd ever be able to come up with a fresh thought to post about
anything, you know that? Otherwise, you'd have reasoning and good logic
behind your proclamations, not simply parrot the same vague stuff over
and over. I haven't seen a fresh online thought from you in what is
probably years now. I think you're incapable of it.

Thanks again, Bruce!

Twayne

Welcome to newsgroups! ;-)
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Bill Ridgeway wrote:
I'm getting tired of this! I asked a question to which several people have
responded and then the whole thing descends into a quagmire of some people
trying to undermine the integrity of others and those people defending
themselves. And this is not the first timer this has happened. How am I
(or anyone else) supposed to treat any response as worth anything at all?
(rhetorical)

Bill Ridgeway

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
That is precisely the ranting and raving you provide in an attempt to
get people to believe your nonsense on registry cleaners.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Back that up with facts not idle chatter.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted.



He can't. He's never been able to produce any facts when asked to
support his claims. I know, I've ask often enough.
In comparison to what you've provided, I have provided infinitely more
evidence and even machine-generated results of several runs in the past.
But you have zero, zip, nothing. Not a shred of anything but opinions of
a small circle of egotists and narcissists IMO.

Your also still continue your myopic boilerplates about a single item,
coming nowhere near to the overall intent and content of a registry
cleaner. From that I long ago deduced that you have no idea what you're
talking about and no inkling of the overall picture, nor of anything
that's available for registry cleaners. You're probably so expert you'd
download a spyware generator instead of an actual registry cleaner
because you have no idea who's who in the industry, based on your past
comments.
You are one of the better rationalizers on the 'net but we all know how
valuable that kind of person is. If it weren't for boilerplate, I'm not
sure you'd ever be able to come up with a fresh thought to post about
anything, you know that? Otherwise, you'd have reasoning and good logic
behind your proclamations, not simply parrot the same vague stuff over
and over. I haven't seen a fresh online thought from you in what is
probably years now. I think you're incapable of it.

Thanks again, Bruce!

Twayne

Simple! Just install and use all registry cleaners.
"Bill Ridgeway" wrote in message
...
I'm getting tired of this! I asked a question to which several people
have responded and then the whole thing descends into a quagmire of some
people trying to undermine the integrity of others and those people
defending themselves. And this is not the first timer this has happened.
How am I (or anyone else) supposed to treat any response as worth anything
at all? (rhetorical)

Bill Ridgeway

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
That is precisely the ranting and raving you provide in an attempt to
get people to believe your nonsense on registry cleaners.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Back that up with facts not idle chatter.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...

I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted.





He can't. He's never been able to produce any facts when asked to
support his claims. I know, I've ask often enough.

In comparison to what you've provided, I have provided infinitely more
evidence and even machine-generated results of several runs in the past.
But you have zero, zip, nothing. Not a shred of anything but opinions
of a small circle of egotists and narcissists IMO.

Your also still continue your myopic boilerplates about a single item,
coming nowhere near to the overall intent and content of a registry
cleaner. From that I long ago deduced that you have no idea what you're
talking about and no inkling of the overall picture, nor of anything
that's available for registry cleaners. You're probably so expert you'd
download a spyware generator instead of an actual registry cleaner
because you have no idea who's who in the industry, based on your past
comments.
You are one of the better rationalizers on the 'net but we all know
how valuable that kind of person is. If it weren't for boilerplate, I'm
not sure you'd ever be able to come up with a fresh thought to post
about anything, you know that? Otherwise, you'd have reasoning and good
logic behind your proclamations, not simply parrot the same vague stuff
over and over. I haven't seen a fresh online thought from you in what
is probably years now. I think you're incapable of it.

Thanks again, Bruce!

Twayne

Simple! Just install and use all registry cleaners.
"Bill Ridgeway" wrote in message
...
I'm getting tired of this! I asked a question to which several people
have responded and then the whole thing descends into a quagmire of some
people trying to undermine the integrity of others and those people
defending themselves. And this is not the first timer this has happened.
How am I (or anyone else) supposed to treat any response as worth anything
at all? (rhetorical)

Bill Ridgeway

"Unknown" wrote in message
...
That is precisely the ranting and raving you provide in an attempt to
get people to believe your nonsense on registry cleaners.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Unknown wrote:
Back that up with facts not idle chatter.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...

I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted.





He can't. He's never been able to produce any facts when asked to
support his claims. I know, I've ask often enough.

In comparison to what you've provided, I have provided infinitely more
evidence and even machine-generated results of several runs in the past.
But you have zero, zip, nothing. Not a shred of anything but opinions
of a small circle of egotists and narcissists IMO.

Your also still continue your myopic boilerplates about a single item,
coming nowhere near to the overall intent and content of a registry
cleaner. From that I long ago deduced that you have no idea what you're
talking about and no inkling of the overall picture, nor of anything
that's available for registry cleaners. You're probably so expert you'd
download a spyware generator instead of an actual registry cleaner
because you have no idea who's who in the industry, based on your past
comments.
You are one of the better rationalizers on the 'net but we all know
how valuable that kind of person is. If it weren't for boilerplate, I'm
not sure you'd ever be able to come up with a fresh thought to post
about anything, you know that? Otherwise, you'd have reasoning and good
logic behind your proclamations, not simply parrot the same vague stuff
over and over. I haven't seen a fresh online thought from you in what
is probably years now. I think you're incapable of it.

Thanks again, Bruce!

Twayne