M$ knew that the Wannacrypt vulnerability had gone public in January

In message , Neil
writes:
On 5/18/2017 4:34 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Neil
writes:
On 5/18/2017 9:11 AM, Paul wrote:
[]
I still haven't seen any comments from WePOS users, as to
whether they got a patch or not automatically. And at what
point in time.
Paul

Some get it, others not so much. Users of a poorly maintained or
unsupported OS are in no position to whine about the time it took to
get a free fix. Priorities have an impact on such things.

I saw no whine in what Paul said.

Since Paul is one of the least likely contributors on this ng to have a
poorly maintained computer, why do you think my comment referred to

Because your comment immediately followed his, as shown above. (And
appeared to be responding to what he said - both including "time".
Perhaps that _wasn't_ your intention.)

him? Or, were you trying to warp the discussion in a particular
direction by snipping the relevant parts?

I didn't snip anything between what Paul wrote and what you did. I
snipped where I put "[]" (short for "snip[ped] here"), taking care to
leave the attributions intact.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

You know what the big secret about posh people is? Most of them are lovely.
- Richard Osman, RT 2016/7/9-15

On 5/18/2017 5:39 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Neil
writes:
On 5/18/2017 4:34 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Neil
writes:
On 5/18/2017 9:11 AM, Paul wrote:
[]
I still haven't seen any comments from WePOS users, as to
whether they got a patch or not automatically. And at what
point in time.
Paul

Some get it, others not so much. Users of a poorly maintained or
unsupported OS are in no position to whine about the time it took to
get a free fix. Priorities have an impact on such things.

I saw no whine in what Paul said.

Since Paul is one of the least likely contributors on this ng to have
a poorly maintained computer, why do you think my comment referred to

Because your comment immediately followed his, as shown above. (And
appeared to be responding to what he said - both including "time".
Perhaps that _wasn't_ your intention.)

him? Or, were you trying to warp the discussion in a particular
direction by snipping the relevant parts?

I didn't snip anything between what Paul wrote and what you did. I
snipped where I put "[]" (short for "snip[ped] here"), taking care to
leave the attributions intact.

The reason that I *didn't* snip the comments above Paul's is because it
provided the context for my comment. By eliminating that portion, your
post implied exactly the opposite of my agreement with Paul. If that
wasn't your intent, I can move on...

--
best regards,

Neil

In message , Neil
writes:
On 5/18/2017 5:39 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
I didn't snip anything between what Paul wrote and what you did. I
snipped where I put "[]" (short for "snip[ped] here"), taking care to
leave the attributions intact.

The reason that I *didn't* snip the comments above Paul's is because it
provided the context for my comment. By eliminating that portion, your
post implied exactly the opposite of my agreement with Paul. If that
wasn't your intent, I can move on...

It wasn't, so we can (-:.

This (and some other!) 'groups would be much impoverished without Paul!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Try to tell me to watch something because it's brilliant and everyone says so
and therefore I will love it, too, and you lose me for ever.
- Alison Graham, RT 2016/2/6-12