Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

| The point with 0-day is that it means unknown vulnerabilities.
|
| What exactly is zero day? I looked up the definition here, and surely all
viruses are zero day? Why would you document your virus before releasing
it?
|

What I wrote above: It's not yet known publicly, so it's
not recognized by AV. I don't know where "0-day" came from.
The phrase doesn't really make sense.

What that means is that if you keep Windows up to date
you're protected against any vulnerabilities that Microsoft
have 1) admitted to and 2) issued a patch for. But that's it.
Same with browsers.

Sometimes they never issue patches. Sometimes it takes a
long time. Sometimes they call the bug a feature. Sometimes
they don't inform the public. Or if they're Apple then sometimes
they attack the messenger and claim the bug finder is a jerk.

The way it typically works is
that someone finds a bug, tells the company, then keeps
quiet for a period out of courtesy, so the company can issue
a patch. If the company ignores the warning, as they often do,
the bug finder may or may not go public after a few months.

All of those things, except bugs that have patches available,
are 0-day, meaning that they can be used to exploit a fully
patched system and AV won't recognize them.

And those are just the things you have to worry about
with your browser on Windows.
A few days ago I posted a link to a report about script
vulnerabilities in popular script libraries, like jquery, angular, etc.
Those are giant blobs of javascript code that people use
to make webpage coding easier. They often have bugs. Some
are not fixed. Some are fixed in one version but many sites
still use an older version. The first case are 0-days. But if you
visit a site using an old, unfixed version then you're still at risk.
So that's a big, ongoing risk.

Today I was reading a long line of attacks in my web server
logs. Someone was trying to access TinyMCE, ckeditor, and
various other things. Those are WYSIWYG editors that allow
people who don't know how to write webpage code to edit
their webpages visually in a browser. And most stuff like that has
bugs. As do Wordpress plugins. The list goes on and on. You'd
be amazed at how many people are running big websites
by the seat of their pants, with no knowledge of coding or
security.
Nearly every convenience used by people who don't know what
they're doing provides a vulnerability for websites to be hacked in
order to attack visitors. That's why someone is trying to access
them on my website. Just trying to find a way in. I get attempts
from China that go on into hundreds of requests, trying to find
any possible bug known by the hackers that they might use
to corrupt my site.

| The more you use online functionality and commerce, the more
| you're at risk. Using MS Office increases your risk.
|
| I don't have that set to go online, for er.... some reason.
|

That risk with MSO is not going online. It's the risk from corrupted
MSO files that can run executable code. If you have MSO
installed you're vulnerable to those. Remember the one
called Melissa? I think it was some script put into a Word
DOC by a reckless office worker who knew a little scripting.
Caused lots of damage, but only to people with MSO installed.
He got caught because he didn't realize that his name was
secretly embedded in the DOC file.

| In the context of the browser, nearly all of that requires script
| enabled. Without executable code it's very hard to attack you.
| Script was never even intended for this usage. Microsoft started
| it by allowing script to run software and ActiveX controls. (Which
| are software.) That made IE powerful.
|
| Nobody has ever said IE was better than any other browser. It's always
been a piece of ****, and it's always been full of security holes.
|
I'd say it's better than any other browser. It's brilliant.
What I can do writing HTAs is amazing. I think MS
are arguably the most talented programmers out there.
IE is amazing. COM is brilliant. The two together are great fun.

Netscape never bothered to support ActiveX or vbscript.
They were too proud. So MS took over because Netscape
couldn't touch the functionality of IE.

The only problem with IE is that it's not safe for online.
Oh, and there's the little problem of it being non-compliant.

But in a way I don't blame them for that. They took over
browsers with their own ingenuity. At one point IE was 90+%
of all browsers. Because the design was so brilliant. And also
because they embedded it into Windows. So it's hard to
complain that their system is non-compliant. They used to
have the leverage to make other people comply with their
standards.

| That allowed MS to get a monopoly with IE.
|
| What was the point in that, since it's free?
|
To own computing. Bill Gates is power hungry and paranoid.
I think he's also good at seeing into the future. He foresaw the
role of the Internet. He foresaw web apps. His approach to both
was petty, and before its time, and not quite rational. So it
didn't really succeed. But he was trying to make sure that
Microsoft would control the Internet because he saw that as
being a big business factor going forward.

If you looked in the Windows\Media folder on Win98 you'd
find ads and logos for things like Forbes, The Economist, Disney,
Citibank. Twenty years ago Bill Gates was trying to figure out
how to make extra money by showing ads and having subscription
webpages, displaying in iframes on the desktop. So you'd subscribe
to Disney, say, and Windows would download ads, movie previews,
and whatever other scams Disney cooked up to exploit children.
Those would then show on your desktop and Microsoft would be
the middleman. It was a lot like what they're trying to do now with
Win10. But in 1998! Brilliant. Way ahead of its time. But there were
some problems.

1) No one understood the whole Active Desktop idea.
2) No one was interested in subscribing to ads.
3) Internet speeds were not fast enough for all that junk.

Microsoft have a bad habit of coming up with clever ways
to vacuum the bucks out of your wallet without actually
thinking about what product people might want. Active Desktop.
Passport. Hailstorm. all forward thinking but all too greedy
in their execution.

In a BusinessWeek interview in 2005 Steve Ballmer seemed
to be foaming at the mouth: "We will rule the Web! We will rule
the Web!" They thought it was key to their survival to take over
the Internet.

Back then there was a lot of talk about portals. Microsoft
had MSN and Passport. Yahoo had a big portal. They were all
trying to pull an AOL, getting people to stay on their sites with
games, news, chat rooms, and so on. That
gradually faded but gave way to a more insidious threat: silos.
Companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon were trying
to create an entire system. Browser, computer, phone, tablet,
apps. Trying to trap people into what Tim Berners-Lee described
as silos. And I suppose it could be argued that social media
constitute another category of silos. Another set of greedy
sleazeballs trying to figure out a way, by hook or by crook, to
make you stay on their website looking at ads.

The personal data
available by having their own browser is vast. Though I think
it's more important now to Google. Microsoft have the OS and
they also have a growing website rental business. Azure. As do
Amazon in AWS. Those have turned out to lucrative. Meanwhile,
Microsoft's phone is kaput and they don't really have tablets.
So their silo potential is limited. But I think their idealized dream
is to make the devices, own the browser, and be the middleman
in everything people do.

That's really the gist of it all: People like you typify the move
toward doing everything online. Nearly everything is going
through middlemen. Look at companies like Facebook, Uber,
GrubHub, AirBnB.... They've all set themselves up to go beyond
communication hubs and actually middleman the business. Facebook
scams by controlling the mode of communication itself. Uber's
a taxi service that scams its employees. GrubHub and others
are restaurant ordering services who've managed to extort up
to 30% from restaurants. And they're all doing it just by owning
the comunication medium. Which is amazing. The Inernet, itself,
was supposed to be the ultimate communication medium. Yet it's
ended up creating a vast industry of sleazy, superfluous middlemen
who are getting a cut of action that didn't even exist a short
time ago.

Everyone wants a piece of that action. Or all of it. With people
living on phones the action is greatly expanded. Microsoft are in
a bit of a spot in that regard. They opened an app store and decided
they could scam Windows programmers with middleman fees. But
then they ended up with no phone! So no apps! I suspect they'll
try to find some kind of foothold on Android. Android apps syncing
on Win10, maybe? I don't know.
Where does Edge fit into that? I don't know. But they're clever.
They could establish a good-enough Chrome clone and then start
adding stuff that only works on Windows. Or adapt the Windows
store to sell Edge plugins. Or maybe they just don't dare to be
without a browser. I don't know. But the fact that they're going
to Chrome indicates to me that they want to infect and conquer.

| Think of it like driving down a narrow country road with your balls
| out the window. You might be fine, for 1 mile, 10 miles, even 100
| miles, but you've put yourself at risk. Hey, is that a branch sticking
| out up ahead? Whack! Happy banking.
|
| Yeah but if for some reason I required my balls to be out of the window
for cooling etc, then I'd just have to take the risk.
|
You've got an answer for everything. If I were
you I'd settle for the dashboard fan. I've got bigger
plans for my balls than having them impaled on a
maple branch. But suit yourself.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

I remember in the late 90s, my American friends boasted about fast internet
(mainly New Yorkers), while in the UK we all had modems. Nowadays the UK
seems to have rushed ahead and got almost everyone fibre internet. But the
USA has stood still.


Big distances here. Same with phones. There
are a lot of places with no cable and/or no cellphone
service. Hipster urbanites like to think landlines are all
but gone. But last I heard only 70% of the US has
highspeed. 10 % don't want it. 20% can't get it. I
have a brother who only recently got DSL. He used to
have satellite, which went out on cloudy days. He still
has no cell service at home. No cable. And that probably
won't change. The companies only want to serve
the dense areas and no regulation makes them serve
rural areas.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:21:59 -0000, Mayayana wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

I remember in the late 90s, my American friends boasted about fast internet
(mainly New Yorkers), while in the UK we all had modems. Nowadays the UK
seems to have rushed ahead and got almost everyone fibre internet. But the
USA has stood still.

Big distances here. Same with phones. There
are a lot of places with no cable and/or no cellphone
service.

Cellphones are pretty **** here in Scotland. Despite being only 2 or 3 miles from a cell mast, I often get ****ty call quality, and the signal bar showing 1 of 4. I guess it would work better if the cell phone companies would get their acts together and use the same damn masts! So there's a mast in town, but er.... it's the wrong kind of mast. What am I to do, buy a sim card from every ****ing company?

Hipster urbanites like to think landlines are all
but gone.

I stopped using mine because in the UK for some reason all the sales calls are on landlines. My mobile gets virtually none, and it's easier to block them on it too. I do have a landline (required for the internet connection) but there's no phone connected to it. I do find it funny when someone (usually a company I don't like) complains that I don't answer their calls (on the line that doesn't really exist).

But last I heard only 70% of the US has
highspeed. 10 % don't want it. 20% can't get it. I
have a brother who only recently got DSL. He used to
have satellite, which went out on cloudy days.

Funny, a long time ago before I could get DSL, I had satellite. Cost me £1000 for the dish! It worked 100% of the time, only problem was the 250ms ping time. When I got DSL, I managed to sell the dish to a guy going to Africa. He seemed to think he could reprogram it to work over there. I dunno if he was successfull.

He still
has no cell service at home. No cable. And that probably
won't change. The companies only want to serve
the dense areas and no regulation makes them serve
rural areas.

In the UK we have some regulations about rural internet, not sure why. One of our governments (we swap from left to right wing as often as you do) decided that everyone must have fast internet by a certain date for the good of commerce or something. Even the ****ing Orkney isles have it.

On 15/11/2019 19:54, Commander Kinsey wrote:
It was not a private personal video, it was posted publicly by Dustin.
If I video myself and put it on Youtube, I can't then take it down after
changing my mind and moan that you kept a copy and posted it again.

Agreed. In fact, if YOU had a copy you could post it here for all to
see. Or maybe you could get Dustin to post the original so we could hear
his dulcet tones too!

On 15/11/2019 22:16, Mayayana wrote:
You've got an answer for everything. If I were
you I'd settle for the dashboard fan. I've got bigger
plans for my balls than having them impaled on a
maple branch. But suit yourself.

Now, at last, I know your gender for sure! ;-)

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Nobody has ever said IE was better than any other browser. It's always
been a piece of ****, and it's always been full of security holes.
|
I'd say it's better than any other browser. It's brilliant.
What I can do writing HTAs is amazing. I think MS
are arguably the most talented programmers out there.
IE is amazing. COM is brilliant. The two together are great fun.

you can't seriously believe that.

or maybe your calendar is wrong. is it april 1 where you are?

Netscape never bothered to support ActiveX or vbscript.
They were too proud. So MS took over because Netscape
couldn't touch the functionality of IE.

it wasn't a matter of pride, but rather that microsoft prevented them
from doing so.

The only problem with IE is that it's not safe for online.
Oh, and there's the little problem of it being non-compliant.

that alone confirms the original claim of ie being 'a piece of ****'.

a browser that's not compliant and not safe for online is useless.

that also contradicts your claim microsoft having 'the most talented
programmers out there'. if they were talented, then the software they
write would be *both* compliant *and* safe.

But in a way I don't blame them for that.

you should, since they wrote it.

They took over
browsers with their own ingenuity. At one point IE was 90+%
of all browsers. Because the design was so brilliant.

no, that's not very definitely not why.

And also
because they embedded it into Windows.

that's why, thereby killing off other options, otherwise known as abuse
of monopoly position.

So it's hard to
complain that their system is non-compliant. They used to
have the leverage to make other people comply with their
standards.

what they did was take existing standards and modify them enough so
that only ie works, reinforcing their monopoly position.

fortunately, those days are over.

today, microsoft has a *lot* of competition from many different
companies, and because of that, their products are *significantly*
better than they once were.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


Big distances here. Same with phones. There
are a lot of places with no cable and/or no cellphone
service.

those areas have very few people, so not much need to cover it.

Hipster urbanites like to think landlines are all
but gone.

it ain't just hipsters.

as of a year ago, 41% have landlines:
https://infographic.statista.com/nor...2_landline_pho
nes_in_the_united_states_n.jpg

the trend is fairly linear, so it's probably somewhere around 35% now,
certainly under 40%.

But last I heard only 70% of the US has
highspeed.

then you haven't been hearing much for nearly a decade.

also as of a year ago:
https://www.marketingcharts.com/digital-81804
Broadband now accounts for virtually all (98%) of home internet
service. As as result, 82% of US households now have a broadband
internet service, per the report, which is up from 76% in 2012

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:16:07 -0000, Mayayana wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

| In the context of the browser, nearly all of that requires script
| enabled. Without executable code it's very hard to attack you.
| Script was never even intended for this usage. Microsoft started
| it by allowing script to run software and ActiveX controls. (Which
| are software.) That made IE powerful.
|
| Nobody has ever said IE was better than any other browser. It's always
been a piece of ****, and it's always been full of security holes.
|
I'd say it's better than any other browser. It's brilliant.
What I can do writing HTAs is amazing. I think MS
are arguably the most talented programmers out there.
IE is amazing. COM is brilliant. The two together are great fun.

Netscape never bothered to support ActiveX or vbscript.
They were too proud. So MS took over because Netscape
couldn't touch the functionality of IE.

The only problem with IE is that it's not safe for online.
Oh, and there's the little problem of it being non-compliant.

But in a way I don't blame them for that. They took over
browsers with their own ingenuity. At one point IE was 90+%
of all browsers. Because the design was so brilliant. And also
because they embedded it into Windows. So it's hard to
complain that their system is non-compliant. They used to
have the leverage to make other people comply with their
standards.

IE has always been absolute rubbish. Buggy, slow, full of security flaws. I've always used alternatives.

| That allowed MS to get a monopoly with IE.
|
| What was the point in that, since it's free?
|
To own computing. Bill Gates is power hungry and paranoid.
I think he's also good at seeing into the future. He foresaw the
role of the Internet. He foresaw web apps.

I do wish people wouldn't say "app". You don't shorten other words to one syllable do you? "I'm ju go out to do the gar". Or "I'm just going out to do the gardening." It's "application" or "program", not "app".

His approach to both
was petty, and before its time, and not quite rational. So it
didn't really succeed. But he was trying to make sure that
Microsoft would control the Internet because he saw that as
being a big business factor going forward.

When Gates left was when Windows got that Metro ****. I remember him trying it out and not knowing how the **** to log in! A blank screen with just a picture, and somehow the user was supposed to know to "swipe" down the screen?!?

If you looked in the Windows\Media folder on Win98 you'd
find ads and logos for things like Forbes, The Economist, Disney,
Citibank. Twenty years ago Bill Gates was trying to figure out
how to make extra money by showing ads and having subscription
webpages, displaying in iframes on the desktop. So you'd subscribe
to Disney, say, and Windows would download ads, movie previews,
and whatever other scams Disney cooked up to exploit children.
Those would then show on your desktop and Microsoft would be
the middleman. It was a lot like what they're trying to do now with
Win10. But in 1998! Brilliant. Way ahead of its time. But there were
some problems.

1) No one understood the whole Active Desktop idea.
2) No one was interested in subscribing to ads.

Well obviously. One day advertising morons will realise we just don't want that ****!

3) Internet speeds were not fast enough for all that junk.

Microsoft have a bad habit of coming up with clever ways
to vacuum the bucks out of your wallet without actually
thinking about what product people might want. Active Desktop.
Passport. Hailstorm. all forward thinking but all too greedy
in their execution.

Rather like Apple.

That's really the gist of it all: People like you typify the move
toward doing everything online. Nearly everything is going
through middlemen. Look at companies like Facebook, Uber,
GrubHub, AirBnB.... They've all set themselves up to go beyond
communication hubs and actually middleman the business. Facebook
scams by controlling the mode of communication itself. Uber's
a taxi service that scams its employees. GrubHub and others
are restaurant ordering services who've managed to extort up
to 30% from restaurants. And they're all doing it just by owning
the comunication medium. Which is amazing. The Inernet, itself,
was supposed to be the ultimate communication medium. Yet it's
ended up creating a vast industry of sleazy, superfluous middlemen
who are getting a cut of action that didn't even exist a short
time ago.

Er, not me. I don't do that social media **** for a start. The internet is for looking stuff up and downloading TV and games.

Everyone wants a piece of that action. Or all of it. With people
living on phones the action is greatly expanded. Microsoft are in
a bit of a spot in that regard. They opened an app store and decided
they could scam Windows programmers with middleman fees. But
then they ended up with no phone! So no apps! I suspect they'll
try to find some kind of foothold on Android. Android apps syncing
on Win10, maybe? I don't know.

I just bought a smartphone for £28. It won't go online on the mobile network, but it will on my wifi. Some bull**** about the access point settings according to my phone company. Either the phone's ****ed, or it's not compatible with my phone company (the phone thinks the sim card is for O2, when I'm actually on giffgaff - giffgaff uses O2 for the signal, but have their own servers, a bit of a mess really). I've already got a 50% refund for the phone. If it won't work with another phone company, I buy another phone. If it will, the other phone company can **** off.

Where does Edge fit into that? I don't know. But they're clever.
They could establish a good-enough Chrome clone and then start
adding stuff that only works on Windows. Or adapt the Windows
store to sell Edge plugins. Or maybe they just don't dare to be
without a browser. I don't know. But the fact that they're going
to Chrome indicates to me that they want to infect and conquer.

Pointless. I and nobody else pays money for Edge. It's just a program to access the internet, free like every other browser.

| Think of it like driving down a narrow country road with your balls
| out the window. You might be fine, for 1 mile, 10 miles, even 100
| miles, but you've put yourself at risk. Hey, is that a branch sticking
| out up ahead? Whack! Happy banking.
|
| Yeah but if for some reason I required my balls to be out of the window
for cooling etc, then I'd just have to take the risk.
|
You've got an answer for everything. If I were
you I'd settle for the dashboard fan. I've got bigger
plans for my balls than having them impaled on a
maple branch. But suit yourself.

Ah, think outside (or this case inside) the box. But I like risks, it's what makes life fun.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 23:12:33 +0000, David wrote:

On 15/11/2019 22:16, Mayayana wrote:
You've got an answer for everything. If I were
you I'd settle for the dashboard fan. I've got bigger
plans for my balls than having them impaled on a
maple branch. But suit yourself.

Now, at last, I know your gender for sure!

Explain to everyone why that's so important to you....

---------------
BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to
hide".
I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request,
rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!":

http://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

60 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes!
Google "David Brooks Devon"
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

"Commander Kinsey"
newsp.0ba92okowdg98l@glass Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:36:14 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 02:28:31 -0000, Diesel
wrote:

"Commander Kinsey"
newsp.0a7alh1jwdg98l@glass Wed, 13 Nov 2019 15:57:07 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 11:08:46 -0000, Diesel
wrote:

"Commander Kinsey"
newsp.0a519wjnwdg98l@glass Tue, 12 Nov 2019 23:59:46 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

So, I create some high-explosives, leave them out on the
pavement, and if anyone takes one and blows up a building
killing 50 people, it wasn't my fault?

Wow. high explosives and a piece of software that self
replicates have so much in common. I had no idea. You give
bat**** crazy an all new meaning. Seriously.

So it's ok to **** up random people's computers?

I suppose if I do it per David Brooks demands because he said God
said it was okay, and to specifically ask me to do it on their
behalfs, it is.

Demands? What would he have done to you if you didn't write it?
More like he asked. You could have just said no.

I did say no, stupid. He's been stalking and besmirching me ever
since then.

You really are a piece of work.

**** man, if you believe that loonie mother****er, I was
following orders sent to him from the creator himself. Who am I
to argue with that? I choose to disobey and you see what that's
gotten me for it, haven't you? Ayep, the claim that no good deed
goes unpunished does have truth to it.

Yes, they are as bad as each other.

That's what I meant about you posting **** to get a rise out of
people. You're doing it again.

Bull****. I'm posting my opinion of you and David, nothing more.

You tried to compare high explosives to being the same as a piece of
software in so far as destruction goes. People aren't replaceable,
important data should have been backed up, so that it IS replaceable.
You can't back a ****ing person up and restore them later.

You tried to claim that Shadow and myself have been stalking David
Brooks - that's ****ing nuts. Nobody has to stalk him. He provides
urls to places he's visited and gotten banned from, and asks for
someone else to explain why/how that could have happened to him. By
doing so, anyone who visits the urls he's sharing can see what nym(s)
he used, this time.

You tried to claim that Shadow, myself and others have all been bad
mouthing David Brooks - again, nuts on your part. None of us have
written anything about him that isn't true. He cannot, on a good day
in hell mind you, claim the same.

You're essentially making claims very close to that of Mike Easter
and those have already been proven to be bull****, on a good day in
hell, too.

You're either a troll, or, an idiot, or both.

There's no comparison between a high
explosive (christ) and a piece of software.

Oh yes there is. The explosive might affect 20 people. The virus
could affect a million.

Something is wrong with you.




--
'I dunno, I might let him live. We'll see.' - Slappy Squirrel

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

To own computing. Bill Gates is power hungry and paranoid.
I think he's also good at seeing into the future. He foresaw the
role of the Internet. He foresaw web apps.

|
I do wish people wouldn't say "app". You don't shorten other words to one
syllable do you? "I'm ju go out to do the gar". Or "I'm just going out to
do the gardening." It's "application" or "program", not "app".
|

I agree. I also don't like "application". It's only an
application when it's been used to accomplish something.
The usage is an application, not the program. Similarly,
Microsoft, with dotnet, started calling software projects
"solutions". They have a great knack for building sleazy
valorization into their terminology.

But in spite of all that, I accept app because it
differentiates a phone applet from a computer software
program.

"David" wrote

| On 15/11/2019 22:16, Mayayana wrote:
| You've got an answer for everything. If I were
| you I'd settle for the dashboard fan. I've got bigger
| plans for my balls than having them impaled on a
| maple branch. But suit yourself.
|
| Now, at last, I know your gender for sure! ;-)

Yes, we've been talking about Christmas decorations.
Those gold and silver balls. I hate to break them. And
they're so delicate. So I guess you can tell from that
that I'm a woman.

I'm a bit surprised that you don't have some kind of
catalogue of personal data that you collect, so that
you could look up such trivia.

Mayayana wrote:
"David" wrote

| On 15/11/2019 22:16, Mayayana wrote:
| You've got an answer for everything. If I were
| you I'd settle for the dashboard fan. I've got bigger
| plans for my balls than having them impaled on a
| maple branch. But suit yourself.
|
| Now, at last, I know your gender for sure! ;-)

Yes, we've been talking about Christmas decorations.
Those gold and silver balls. I hate to break them. And
they're so delicate. So I guess you can tell from that
that I'm a woman.

I'm a bit surprised that you don't have some kind of
catalogue of personal data that you collect, so that
you could look up such trivia.

He probably keeps it on recipe cards, and has a
Rolodex on his desk.

You're in here somewhere. Your gender is listed as
"impossible to determine gender from screen name".
Keep up the good work.

https://previews.123rf.com/images/ru...96-rolodex.jpg

Paul

On 16/11/2019 03:21, Mayayana wrote:
"David" wrote

| On 15/11/2019 22:16, Mayayana wrote:
| You've got an answer for everything. If I were
| you I'd settle for the dashboard fan. I've got bigger
| plans for my balls than having them impaled on a
| maple branch. But suit yourself.
|
| Now, at last, I know your gender for sure! ;-)

Yes, we've been talking about Christmas decorations.
Those gold and silver balls. I hate to break them. And
they're so delicate. So I guess you can tell from that
that I'm a woman.

I'm a bit surprised that you don't have some kind of
catalogue of personal data that you collect, so that
you could look up such trivia.

Some people think that I *DO* have such dossiers! ;-)

With you in mind, I found this gem to share!:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhyPmczXjjU

Enjoy! :-D

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:54:55 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 19:32:42 -0000, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 18:28:02 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

So you admit you're a childish copyright-abiding moron?

The video BD stole and uploaded to public servers was not a
commercial video. It was a private, personal video. After he stole it,
he tried to edit it to make it appear it was illegal, and failed
miserably( he deleted the audio track).
If you can't understand that's not a thing a "normal" person
would do, you're probably not posting to the right group. A cracker's
group would be more appropriate.
In fact, I fail to see why you and BD are posting to Win 10 in
the first place. Is any of this thread-related?
OT up.

It was not a private personal video, it was posted publicly by Dustin.
If I video myself and put it on Youtube

That's not what happened.

I can't then take it down after
changing my mind and moan that you kept a copy and posted it again.

Yes, you definitely belong to a cracker's group. BD was the
one who STOLE and uploaded the PRIVATE video, not the victim.
You've already said you're OK with that kind of behavior, so
don't bother giving any more excuses.

---------------
BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to
hide".
I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request,
rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!":

http://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

60 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes!
Google "David Brooks Devon"
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012