Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Charlie Tame wrote:

You may switch off these features or not use them.

And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even
when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with
their own rules?

Hell with the rules Charlie, both windows update and
the client side service are obviously obsolete and
insecure, apparently since at least 2001 (WinXP release).

Just how hard would it be for a tech' wizard pirate
or unfriendly .mil to slither a custom update while
client is downloading mainstream updates?
How about a maninmiddle loop where downloaded updates
were decompressed then modified and recompressed then
sent back on their merry way? I dunno', now I wonder.
Cloning/faking routers or servers is trivial these days.

Don't get sidetracked with politics or legal BS,
we need a better and transparent system yesterday.
As long as we demand an easy to 'use and apply'
system for updates and security we will have an easy
to manipulate or abuse system...MS did us a favor.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

"despite old Jonesy using it in an attempt"
These little snips by you are becoming more common.
Your need to do so while selectively reading are more of a reflection on
you.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"Charlie Tame" wrote in message
...
Well done, everybody else seems to have missed that despite old Jonesy
using it in an attempt to bolster his case.

That phrase does not say what specifically you can turn off BUT it sure
does imply that you can turn all of it off.

Now, on many occasions I have seen the "Windows is checking if you have
the latest version of the updating software" or whatever and I wait and it
says I need to install some ActiveX to proceed with the process. I see
nothing wrong with this and see no reason why, suddenly, MS decided to not
ask that question and do it anyway. When I say check for updates it's
obviously going to check that the updater on my machine is the current
version, why go sneaking about the back door UNLESS you have something to
hide?

You can't always leave auto install on, if a restart is needed and shuts
down an industrial process control you're in trouble, bt most people could
and probably should, however sneaking about in the background is NOT going
to encourage that

NT Canuck wrote:
Charlie Tame wrote:

You may switch off these features or not use them.

And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even
when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with
their own rules?

Hell with the rules Charlie, both windows update and
the client side service are obviously obsolete and
insecure, apparently since at least 2001 (WinXP release).

Just how hard would it be for a tech' wizard pirate
or unfriendly .mil to slither a custom update while
client is downloading mainstream updates?
How about a maninmiddle loop where downloaded updates
were decompressed then modified and recompressed then
sent back on their merry way? I dunno', now I wonder.
Cloning/faking routers or servers is trivial these days.

Don't get sidetracked with politics or legal BS,
we need a better and transparent system yesterday.
As long as we demand an easy to 'use and apply'
system for updates and security we will have an easy
to manipulate or abuse system...MS did us a favor.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'


Well if you read my reply to Jupiter I have a couple of issues with
ActiveX being indistinguishable from the update software as far as
messages are concerned, I do think it should be possible to have some
single separate thing to do the job. That's not to say it's possible to
make any communication 100% secure, but at least IT folks would have a
clue when something was reported to them.

We have a locked server at work and the terminals can't browse the
internet normally, but if they hit windows update IE opens up and away
they go. It was a nurse who found this

I think IE and standard technology being involved with updates for a
modern OS is not a good idea...

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
"despite old Jonesy using it in an attempt"
These little snips by you are becoming more common.
Your need to do so while selectively reading are more of a reflection on
you.



You're getting more pompous, so what?

The fact is that your attempts to play down the seriousness of the
world's leading supplier of operating systems leaving security concerns
by choice in 90% of the country's computers is irresponsible. Fair
enough, nothing serious happened "This time", but only weeks ago their
sneaky software declared a lot of their "Flagship" products illegal,
causing REAL loss of functionality BY DESIGN. What are Microsoft thinking?

Maybe their action then was accidental, maybe the sneak updates are
"Legal", but both of these are a serious blow to their claims of being
the leaders in "Trustworthy Computing" from the user's point of view.

You state that there is a "Workaround" for the update issue, and there
is, but it's not stated clearly and not something the average user would
think of, even a good IT Pro might miss it. So my question for MS is
"What Workaround do we have to look for next, what else are you doing
that we should know about?"

Failure to deal with these matter by denial helps nobody, especially
Microsoft if disillusioned users start voting with their feet.

norm wrote:
Frank wrote:

norm wrote:

...However, you have avowed (on occasion in very strong terms) that
you believe in God, so I will restate what I said above as this:
And you, as an avowed believer in God, certainly do not present
yourself as such in this group.


Oh really? Now you're going to sit in judgment of me? So you must be
without sin to be able to cast the first stone right?

There is no judgement to be made. You provide ample evidence that your
proclamation of belief and your actions do not jibe.


Regardless of being a Christian or not, your actions and statements
still belie your belief.


They do? What beliefs are those, huh?

You are still a hypocrite.

And which of the deadly sins are you guilty of committing?

Did I accuse you of committing a deadly sin? No. I called you a
hypocrite. Bit of stretch on your part for the sake of argument.




Do you think people don't notice your behavior?

I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a
public ng, huh?



Pitiful need for attention, I take it?



Nice try but no cigar. If you want to be heard, public forums are
the place to be, right?
Or do you prefer being alone and talking to yourself?



The

word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.




Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say
such a thing?



If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in
the course of your "arguments"?



Please point out where I've used the term "Christian" as a point of
argument, ok?


Per my corrected comment above, you might not have used the term
"Christian" but you certainly have used God's name in your
"arguments" and accusations of someone being a godless atheist.


Yeah and alias is proud of being an atheist, right?
So...?

The issue is not whether alias is an atheist or not. The issue is that
you are a hypocrite.


Your belief and your

actions appear to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.


Which spectrum is that norm...the one you made up?

The spectrum of proclaiming belief on one hand and your actions on the
other.



Or could it be that you will use any

"weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your
little game to gain the attention you need?




Careful, you're about to fall on your own sword.


Again, I think not.

Oh, I think you've already done it!


Then again, why bother to

ask anything of you?



You tell me? Seeing as how you're the one doing the questioning.

There will be nothing of substance forthcoming

anyway.



Ahhh...the final try at an insult! Sorry norm, but engaging you in
any substantive discussion now seems out of reason and reach.


So says the master of insults. As you have so many times asked
others, I in turn ask you. How can it be an insult if it is the truth?


Remember what RR said..."the truth is only a reality that can be
manipulated".
Who do you answer to norm?
Frank

I don't answer to you. Spin it any way you want. You are no less a
hypocrite regardless of your arguments or your new questions. You
proclaim your belief in God and you act in direct opposition to that
belief.
hyp·o·crite /?h?p?kr?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,
principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a
person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,
esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her
public statements.
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME ipocrite OF LL hypocrita Gk hypokrits a
stage actor, hence one who pretends to be what he is not, equiv. to
hypokr(nesthai) (see hypocrisy) + -tés agent suffix]

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin
hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or
feelings


hehehe...I guess I pushed all of your buttons, right norm?
But guess what, you're opinion of me is obviously only important to you.
Pity that you're such a small person.
Frank

Charlie Tame wrote:

We have a locked server at work and the terminals can't browse the
internet normally, but if they hit windows update IE opens up and away
they go. It was a nurse who found this

and if some don't know...
you can use IE (or any browser) as a file manager.
Thankfully with wuac enabled IE asked before going to c:/

Please tell me that the system mentioned has wuac enabled
and that she had to ok a warning popup...

I think IE and standard technology being involved with updates for a
modern OS is not a good idea...

There are a few problems with the Vista system inheriting
IE7 problems that need tending, hopefully folks will give
useful info/links so that they can be replicated.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

"more pompous"
Your need to insult instead of dealing with the issues reflects on your own
character and not on those you need to insult.

"even a good IT Pro might miss it"
Then the IT Pro clearly is not.

"Failure to deal with these matter by denial helps nobody"
Your selective reading is getting old.
Your inability or unwillingness to see that I have given the solution for
users is solely your problem.
You deal with it by insulting others and you call me "pompous".

You need to read my posts again, possibly for the first time.
Your assumptions and selectively reading do nothing to help the OP.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"Charlie Tame" wrote in message
...
You're getting more pompous, so what?

The fact is that your attempts to play down the seriousness of the world's
leading supplier of operating systems leaving security concerns by choice
in 90% of the country's computers is irresponsible. Fair enough, nothing
serious happened "This time", but only weeks ago their sneaky software
declared a lot of their "Flagship" products illegal, causing REAL loss of
functionality BY DESIGN. What are Microsoft thinking?

Maybe their action then was accidental, maybe the sneak updates are
"Legal", but both of these are a serious blow to their claims of being the
leaders in "Trustworthy Computing" from the user's point of view.

You state that there is a "Workaround" for the update issue, and there is,
but it's not stated clearly and not something the average user would think
of, even a good IT Pro might miss it. So my question for MS is "What
Workaround do we have to look for next, what else are you doing that we
should know about?"

Failure to deal with these matter by denial helps nobody, especially
Microsoft if disillusioned users start voting with their feet.

One more thing...
"The fact is that your attempts to play down the seriousness"
You seem to conveniently ignore the difference between what is legal and
what should an organization do with their customers interests in mind.

they are not the same and your need to blur the two does not help anyone.
--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"Charlie Tame" wrote in message
...
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
You're getting more pompous, so what?

The fact is that your attempts to play down the seriousness of the world's
leading supplier of operating systems leaving security concerns by choice
in 90% of the country's computers is irresponsible. Fair enough, nothing
serious happened "This time", but only weeks ago their sneaky software
declared a lot of their "Flagship" products illegal, causing REAL loss of
functionality BY DESIGN. What are Microsoft thinking?

Maybe their action then was accidental, maybe the sneak updates are
"Legal", but both of these are a serious blow to their claims of being the
leaders in "Trustworthy Computing" from the user's point of view.

You state that there is a "Workaround" for the update issue, and there is,
but it's not stated clearly and not something the average user would think
of, even a good IT Pro might miss it. So my question for MS is "What
Workaround do we have to look for next, what else are you doing that we
should know about?"

Failure to deal with these matter by denial helps nobody, especially
Microsoft if disillusioned users start voting with their feet.

Frank wrote:
norm wrote:
Frank wrote:

norm wrote:

...However, you have avowed (on occasion in very strong terms) that
you believe in God, so I will restate what I said above as this:
And you, as an avowed believer in God, certainly do not present
yourself as such in this group.


Oh really? Now you're going to sit in judgment of me? So you must be
without sin to be able to cast the first stone right?

There is no judgement to be made. You provide ample evidence that your
proclamation of belief and your actions do not jibe.


Regardless of being a Christian or not, your actions and statements
still belie your belief.


They do? What beliefs are those, huh?

You are still a hypocrite.

And which of the deadly sins are you guilty of committing?

Did I accuse you of committing a deadly sin? No. I called you a
hypocrite. Bit of stretch on your part for the sake of argument.




Do you think people don't notice your behavior?

I sure as hell hope they do! Otherwise why would I post in a
public ng, huh?



Pitiful need for attention, I take it?



Nice try but no cigar. If you want to be heard, public forums are
the place to be, right?
Or do you prefer being alone and talking to yourself?



The

word "hypocrite" seems an apt description for you.




Oh, and what is it that I've professed to that would make you say
such a thing?



If you are not Christian, why do you make the statements you do in
the course of your "arguments"?



Please point out where I've used the term "Christian" as a point of
argument, ok?


Per my corrected comment above, you might not have used the term
"Christian" but you certainly have used God's name in your
"arguments" and accusations of someone being a godless atheist.


Yeah and alias is proud of being an atheist, right?
So...?

The issue is not whether alias is an atheist or not. The issue is that
you are a hypocrite.


Your belief and your

actions appear to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.


Which spectrum is that norm...the one you made up?

The spectrum of proclaiming belief on one hand and your actions on the
other.



Or could it be that you will use any

"weapon" whether you subscribe to a belief or not to continue your
little game to gain the attention you need?




Careful, you're about to fall on your own sword.


Again, I think not.

Oh, I think you've already done it!


Then again, why bother to

ask anything of you?



You tell me? Seeing as how you're the one doing the questioning.

There will be nothing of substance forthcoming

anyway.



Ahhh...the final try at an insult! Sorry norm, but engaging you in
any substantive discussion now seems out of reason and reach.


So says the master of insults. As you have so many times asked
others, I in turn ask you. How can it be an insult if it is the truth?


Remember what RR said..."the truth is only a reality that can be
manipulated".
Who do you answer to norm?
Frank

I don't answer to you. Spin it any way you want. You are no less a
hypocrite regardless of your arguments or your new questions. You
proclaim your belief in God and you act in direct opposition to that
belief.
hyp·o·crite /?h?p?kr?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious
beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess,
esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved
attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie
his or her public statements.
[Origin: 1175–1225; ME ipocrite OF LL hypocrita Gk hypokrits a
stage actor, hence one who pretends to be what he is not, equiv. to
hypokr(nesthai) (see hypocrisy) + -tés agent suffix]

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin
hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or
feelings


hehehe...I guess I pushed all of your buttons, right norm?
hehehe....So that is your modus operandi? Geez, no one would ever guess
that you might do that. As for you pushing my buttons, think what you will.
But guess what, you're opinion of me is obviously only important to you.
No more than your opinions are important only to you.
Pity that you're such a small person.
You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite.
Frank


--
norm

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
One more thing...
"The fact is that your attempts to play down the seriousness"
You seem to conveniently ignore the difference between what is legal and
what should an organization do with their customers interests in mind.

they are not the same and your need to blur the two does not help anyone.


If YOU had read what I wrote you would have seen that I clearly
mentioned that their action may be legal, it probably is worded in that
manner, however it remains deceptive to anyone reading the EULA without
presupposing malicious intent. Once again you remove the context to make
it look as if something different was said.

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
"more pompous"
Your need to insult instead of dealing with the issues reflects on your
own character and not on those you need to insult.

"even a good IT Pro might miss it"
Then the IT Pro clearly is not.


Nonsense, you are again suggesting that an IT pro has to treat MS with
distrust in order to do his job properly...




"Failure to deal with these matter by denial helps nobody"
Your selective reading is getting old.
Your inability or unwillingness to see that I have given the solution
for users is solely your problem.
You deal with it by insulting others and you call me "pompous".



1 I was referring to MS denying that there's a serious issue here and so
what if you have given a (Workaround not a solution) to a handful of
people who post here? When it comes to criticism you claim that it only
comes from a mere handful who visit these forums but you make it sound
like you half dozen posts have reached more of the Windows User base.




You need to read my posts again, possibly for the first time.
Your assumptions and selectively reading do nothing to help the OP.


Neither does any of your pontificating, and I don't know how you face
yourself complaining about selective reading when you constantly edit
others' statements to remove the context.

NT Canuck wrote:
Charlie Tame wrote:

We have a locked server at work and the terminals can't browse the
internet normally, but if they hit windows update IE opens up and away
they go. It was a nurse who found this

and if some don't know...
you can use IE (or any browser) as a file manager.
Thankfully with wuac enabled IE asked before going to c:/

Please tell me that the system mentioned has wuac enabled
and that she had to ok a warning popup...

I think IE and standard technology being involved with updates for a
modern OS is not a good idea...

There are a few problems with the Vista system inheriting
IE7 problems that need tending, hopefully folks will give
useful info/links so that they can be replicated.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'



The server is W2003 and managed from elsewhere, I only cover dire
emergencies so I don't know or influence security policy. Access is from
Winterm thin clients mostly via RDP although there are a couple of XP
PCs using it.

norm wrote:


You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite.

---------------------------------------------------------

Well norm, I don't think so.
If you calling me a hypocrite is the best you can come with, and that's
your best shot, sorry, but it is not near good enough.
And only coming up with a cut/paste dictionary definition doesn't make
me one nor does you calling me one make me one cause I'm not a hypocrite
by your's or anyone else's definition.
And just because you want it to doesn't mean it does.
Too bad!
Try harder.
Frank

Oh, and one other thing.
You have no idea who I am either!

You Just Violated The Microsoft Connect TOS (Terms Of Service), Just FYI.

P.S. You Are Not Supposed To Post Your Beta ID In The Public Newsgroups,
Just FYI.

"Kevin Brunt (Fat Baztard)" wrote in message
...

This is just the pratice run. Next time MS will also try disabling any
systems it thinks is using pirated software!! Watch the space!!!


Silicon neuron wrote:

http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1

By Scott Dunn

Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely
installed,
and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.

Files changed with no notice to users

In recent days, Windows Update (WU) started altering files on users'
systems
without displaying any dialog box to request permission. The only files
that
have been reportedly altered to date are nine small executables on XP and
nine on Vista that are used by WU itself. Microsoft is patching these
files
silently, even if auto-updates have been disabled on a particular PC.

It's surprising that these files can be changed without the user's
knowledge. The Automatic Updates dialog box in the Control Panel can be
set
to prevent updates from being installed automatically. However, with
Microsoft's latest stealth move, updates to the WU executables seem to be
installed regardless of the settings - without notifying users.

When users launch Windows Update, Microsoft's online service can check
the
version of its executables on the PC and update them if necessary. What's
unusual is that people are reporting changes in these files although WU
wasn't authorized to install anything.

This isn't the first time Microsoft has pushed updates out to users who
prefer to test and install their updates manually. Not long ago, another
Windows component, svchost.exe, was causing problems with Windows Update,
as
last reported on June 21 in the Windows Secrets Newsletter. In that case,
however, the Windows Update site notified users that updated software had
to
be installed before the patching process could proceed. This time, such a
notice never appears.

For users who elect not to have updates installed automatically, the
issue
of consent is crucial. Microsoft has apparently decided, however, that it
doesn't need permission to patch Windows Updates files, even if you've
set
your preferences to require it.

Microsoft provides no tech information - yet

To make matters even stranger, a search on Microsoft's Web site reveals
no
information at all on the stealth updates. Let's say you wished to
voluntarily download and install the new WU executable files when you
were,
for example, reinstalling a system. You'd be hard-pressed to find the
updated files in order to download them. At this writing, you either get
a
stealth install or nothing.

A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files, which
bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at
Microsoft's site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a Microsoft
Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states:

"Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update
itself.
It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update
is
installed, Windows Update won't work, at least in terms of searching for
further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked
until this update is installed."

Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft
Partner Support about the update and received this short reply:

"7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific
issues
found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS [Windows
Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be
available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is
available."

Unfortunately, this reply does not explain why the stealth patching began
with so little information provided to customers. Nor does it provide any
details on the "specific issues" that the update supposedly addresses.

System logs confirm stealth installs

In his forum post, Dean-Dean names several files that are changed on XP
and
Vista. The patching process updates several Windows\System32 executables
(with the extensions .exe, .dll, and .cpl) to version 7.0.6000.381,
according to the post.

In Vista, the following files are updated:

1. wuapi.dll
2. wuapp.exe
3. wuauclt.exe
4. wuaueng.dll
5. wucltux.dll
6. wudriver.dll
7. wups.dll
8. wups2.dll
9. wuwebv.dll

In XP, the following files are updated:

1. cdm.dll
2. wuapi.dll
3. wuauclt.exe
4. wuaucpl.cpl
5. wuaueng.dll
6. wucltui.dll
7. wups.dll
8. wups2.dll
9. wuweb.dll

These files are by no means viruses, and Microsoft appears to have no
malicious intent in patching them. However, writing files to a user's PC
without notice (when auto-updating has been turned off) is behavior
that's
usually associated with hacker Web sites. The question being raised in
discussion forums is, "Why is Microsoft operating in this way?"

How to check which version your PC has

If a system has been patched in the past few months, the nine executables
in
Windows\System32 will either show an earlier version number,
7.0.6000.374,
or the stealth patch: 7.0.6000.381. (The version numbers can be seen by
right-clicking a file and choosing Properties. In XP, click the Version
tab
and then select File Version. In Vista, click the Details tab.)

In addition, PCs that received the update will have new executables in
subfolders named 7.0.6000.381 under the following folders:

c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\Ser viceStartup\wups.dll
c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\Ser viceStartup\wups2.dll

Users can also verify whether patching occurred by checking Windows'
Event
Log:

Step 1. In XP, click Start, Run.

Step 2. Type eventvwr.msc and press Enter.

Step 3. In the tree pane on the left, select System.

Step 4. The right pane displays events and several details about them.
Event
types such as "Installation" are labeled in the Category column. "Windows
Update Agent" is the event typically listed in the Source column for
system
patches.

On systems that were checked recently by Windows Secrets readers, the
Event
Log shows two installation events on Aug. 24. The files were
stealth-updated
in the early morning hours. (The time stamp will vary, of course, on
machines that received the patch on other dates.)

To investigate further, you can open the Event Log's properties for each
event. Normally, when a Windows update event occurs, the properties
dialog
box shows an associated KB number, enabling you to find more information
at
Microsoft's Web site. Mysteriously, no KB number is given for the WU
updates
that began in August. The description merely reads, "Installation
Successful: Windows successfully installed the following update:
Automatic
Updates."

No need to roll back the updated files

Again, it's important to note that there's nothing harmful about the
updated
files themselves. There are no reports of software conflicts and no
reason
to remove the files (which WU apparently needs in order to access the
latest
patches). The only concern is the mechanism Microsoft is using to perform
its patching, and how this mechanism might be used by the software giant
in
the future.

I'd like to thank reader Angus Scott-Fleming for his help in researching
this topic. He recommends that advanced Windows users monitor changes to
their systems' Registry settings via a free program by Olivier Lombart
called Tiny Watcher. Scott-Fleming will receive a gift certificate for a
book, CD, or DVD of his choice for sending in a comment we printed.

I'll report further on this story when I'm able to find more information
on
the policies and techniques behind Windows Update's silent patches. Send
me
your tips on this subject via the Windows Secrets contact page.

Scott Dunn is associate editor of the Windows Secrets Newsletter. He is
also
a contributing editor of PC World Magazine, where he has written a
monthly
column since 1992, and co-author of 101 Windows Tips & Tricks (Peachpit)
with Jesse Berst and Charles Bermant.

Frank wrote:
norm wrote:


You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite.

---------------------------------------------------------

Well norm, I don't think so.
If you calling me a hypocrite is the best you can come with, and that's
your best shot, sorry, but it is not near good enough.
Good enough for what? You?
And only coming up with a cut/paste dictionary definition doesn't make
me one nor does you calling me one make me one cause I'm not a hypocrite
by your's or anyone else's definition.
Sure you are.
And just because you want it to doesn't mean it does.
Too bad!
Try harder.
Don't need to.
Frank

Oh, and one other thing.
You have no idea who I am either!
Sure I do. You are a hypocrite, by anyone's definition.


--
norm