Why can't we have an undetectable adblocker?

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 22:52:21 -0000, ~BD~ wrote:

On 11/11/2019 20:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:45:09 -0000, ~BD~ wrote:

On 11/11/2019 00:07, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 12:52:33 -0000, ~BD~ wrote:

On 09/11/2019 12:25, CoMmAnDoTrOn wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 21:20:57 -0000, CoMmAnDoTrOn
wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

Bull****. Absolute utter bull****. There is no way you can tell
if an
ad is displayed on my monitor, or if a white box is displayed on my
monitor. You'd need a camera in my house to do that.

Screenshots do not need a camera in your house. You are posting on a
topic you know nothing about. (And we have other ways to tell if
an ad
is displayed.)

Taking a screenshot of someone's computer is hacking into it and
highly
illegal. And you can't do it without installing a virus.


We can take the screenshot with your web browser. OMG, your web
browser
must be a virus! Your computer is like, totally compromised!

The only sure way for you to get rid of a virus is to reformat and
reinstall. I hope you have a backup from before any "virus" (web
browser) was installed on your computer. :-D


And you simply can't tell if it's displayed. If the browser
downloads
it from you, you can't tell whether those pixels end up on my
screen or
in the bin where they belong.


Yes we can. A screenshot will show whether the pixels end up on your
screen. You are posting on a topic you know nothing about.


And if you're an ad creator, you're a ****. Nobody likes you, nobody
wants your product, so **** off and die.


The web site wants the ads, so it can make enough money to pay its
bills. If the web site cannot pay its bills then it has to close.

You want the web site, or else you would not visit it. If the ads went
away the web site would have to close. You are too tightwad to pay the
web site's bills. The money to pay the bills has to come from
elsewhere.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.


FYI we at Leet Website Command are not the ad creators.


Be wary of the which sites you visit!

https://i.imgur.com/JCa39b8.jpg

*Nobody in the UK using BT as their ISP can visit the site* (without a
VPN) so there must surely be SOMETHING untoward happening there!

A website shouldn't be able to do anything untoward. Unless your
browser is a piece of ****.

The website belonging to Beauregard T. Shagnasty can, and DOES, do
untoward things!

No matter WHICH browser I have used!

Such things can only occur if there's a security hole, which browser
writers should be fixing ****ing sharpish. Perhaps you should report
all these instances to the browser people so they can protect the next
version from him and any other miscreants. Also, your AV program should
also be able to block such things. So that's TWO failures.

The Gurus on the ASC recommend that one should *NOT* use AV software on
an Apple computer.

Then they're fools. What would be so magical about an Apple that it can't get viruses? It may have been true in the past, because nobody bothered writing viruses for computers that hardly anyone used (it's more effective to write a virus for a computer that a large percentage of people have), but there seem to be some around now - perhaps because virus writers have realised that Mac owners think they're immune so are likely to have zero protection.

I trust you have enjoyed the recent cold snap! ;-)

Cold?! I haven't had any frost yet. The only thing annoying me is my mortar isn't setting on the house extension. I may have to put some fan heaters out there to warm the bricks up.

On 12/11/2019 00:37, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 22:52:21 -0000, ~BD~ wrote:

On 11/11/2019 20:50, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 00:45:09 -0000, ~BD~ wrote:

On 11/11/2019 00:07, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 12:52:33 -0000, ~BD~ wrote:

On 09/11/2019 12:25, CoMmAnDoTrOn wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 21:20:57 -0000, CoMmAnDoTrOn
wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

Bull****.* Absolute utter bull****.* There is no way you can tell
if an
ad is displayed on my monitor, or if a white box is displayed
on my
monitor.* You'd need a camera in my house to do that.

Screenshots do not need a camera in your house. You are posting
on a
topic you know nothing about. (And we have other ways to tell if
an ad
is displayed.)

Taking a screenshot of someone's computer is hacking into it and
highly
illegal.* And you can't do it without installing a virus.


We can take the screenshot with your web browser. OMG, your web
browser
must be a virus! Your computer is like, totally compromised!

The only sure way for you to get rid of a virus is to reformat and
reinstall. I hope you have a backup from before any "virus" (web
browser) was installed on your computer.* :-D


And you simply can't tell if it's displayed.* If the browser
downloads
it from you, you can't tell whether those pixels end up on my
screen or
in the bin where they belong.


Yes we can. A screenshot will show whether the pixels end up on your
screen. You are posting on a topic you know nothing about.


And if you're an ad creator, you're a ****.* Nobody likes you,
nobody
wants your product, so **** off and die.


The web site wants the ads, so it can make enough money to pay its
bills. If the web site cannot pay its bills then it has to close.

You want the web site, or else you would not visit it. If the ads
went
away the web site would have to close. You are too tightwad to
pay the
web site's bills. The money to pay the bills has to come from
elsewhere.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.


FYI we at Leet Website Command are not the ad creators.


Be wary of the which sites you visit!

https://i.imgur.com/JCa39b8.jpg

*Nobody in the UK using BT as their ISP can visit the site*
(without a
VPN) so there must surely be SOMETHING untoward happening there!

A website shouldn't be able to do anything untoward.* Unless your
browser is a piece of ****.

The website belonging to Beauregard T. Shagnasty can, and DOES, do
untoward things!

No matter WHICH browser I have used!

Such things can only occur if there's a security hole, which browser
writers should be fixing ****ing sharpish.* Perhaps you should report
all these instances to the browser people so they can protect the next
version from him and any other miscreants.* Also, your AV program should
also be able to block such things.* So that's TWO failures.

The Gurus on the ASC recommend that one should *NOT* use AV software on
an Apple computer.

Then they're fools.* What would be so magical about an Apple that it
can't get viruses?* It may have been true in the past, because nobody
bothered writing viruses for computers that hardly anyone used (it's
more effective to write a virus for a computer that a large percentage
of people have), but there seem to be some around now - perhaps because
virus writers have realised that Mac owners think they're immune so are
likely to have zero protection.

The new Apple macOS Catalina is supposed to embody its own protection
mechanisms with no need for third-party protection software.

I trust you have enjoyed the recent cold snap! ;-)

Cold?!* I haven't had any frost yet.* The only thing annoying me is my
mortar isn't setting on the house extension.* I may have to put some fan
heaters out there to warm the bricks up.

We've had frost for a few nights during the last week! Perhaps tonight
will be cold enough for you to get one! ;-)

~BD~ Sat, 09
Nov 2019 12:52:33 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 09/11/2019 12:25, CoMmAnDoTrOn wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 21:20:57 -0000, CoMmAnDoTrOn
wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

Bull****. Absolute utter bull****. There is no way you can
tell if an ad is displayed on my monitor, or if a white box is
displayed on my monitor. You'd need a camera in my house to
do that.

Screenshots do not need a camera in your house. You are posting
on a topic you know nothing about. (And we have other ways to
tell if an ad is displayed.)

Taking a screenshot of someone's computer is hacking into it and
highly illegal. And you can't do it without installing a virus.


We can take the screenshot with your web browser. OMG, your web
browser must be a virus! Your computer is like, totally
compromised!

The only sure way for you to get rid of a virus is to reformat
and reinstall. I hope you have a backup from before any "virus"
(web browser) was installed on your computer. :-D


And you simply can't tell if it's displayed. If the browser
downloads it from you, you can't tell whether those pixels end
up on my screen or in the bin where they belong.


Yes we can. A screenshot will show whether the pixels end up on
your screen. You are posting on a topic you know nothing about.


And if you're an ad creator, you're a ****. Nobody likes you,
nobody wants your product, so **** off and die.


The web site wants the ads, so it can make enough money to pay
its bills. If the web site cannot pay its bills then it has to
close.

You want the web site, or else you would not visit it. If the ads
went away the web site would have to close. You are too tightwad
to pay the web site's bills. The money to pay the bills has to
come from elsewhere. There is no such thing as a free lunch.


FYI we at Leet Website Command are not the ad creators.


Be wary of the which sites you visit!

https://i.imgur.com/JCa39b8.jpg

Nobody in the UK using BT as their ISP can visit the site (without
a VPN) so there must surely be SOMETHING untoward happening there!

David, tsk tsk, for someone who recently claimed that they do not
lie, I've read two posts back to back practically from you where
you're doing just that. You're being very dishonest.


--
Oh dear, I've gone and inflated my ego.

~BD~ Mon, 11
Nov 2019 00:45:09 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On 11/11/2019 00:07, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 09 Nov 2019 12:52:33 -0000, ~BD~
wrote:

On 09/11/2019 12:25, CoMmAnDoTrOn wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 21:20:57 -0000, CoMmAnDoTrOn
wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:

Bull****.Â* Absolute utter bull****.Â* There is no way you
can tell if an
ad is displayed on my monitor, or if a white box is
displayed on my monitor.Â* You'd need a camera in my house
to do that.

Screenshots do not need a camera in your house. You are
posting on a topic you know nothing about. (And we have other
ways to tell if an ad is displayed.)

Taking a screenshot of someone's computer is hacking into it
and highly illegal.Â* And you can't do it without installing a
virus.


We can take the screenshot with your web browser. OMG, your web
browser must be a virus! Your computer is like, totally
compromised!

The only sure way for you to get rid of a virus is to reformat
and reinstall. I hope you have a backup from before any "virus"
(web browser) was installed on your computer.Â* :-D


And you simply can't tell if it's displayed.Â* If the browser
downloads it from you, you can't tell whether those pixels end
up on my screen or in the bin where they belong.


Yes we can. A screenshot will show whether the pixels end up on
your screen. You are posting on a topic you know nothing about.


And if you're an ad creator, you're a ****.Â* Nobody likes
you, nobody wants your product, so **** off and die.


The web site wants the ads, so it can make enough money to pay
its bills. If the web site cannot pay its bills then it has to
close.

You want the web site, or else you would not visit it. If the
ads went away the web site would have to close. You are too
tightwad to pay the web site's bills. The money to pay the
bills has to come from elsewhere. There is no such thing as a
free lunch.


FYI we at Leet Website Command are not the ad creators.


Be wary of the which sites you visit!

https://i.imgur.com/JCa39b8.jpg

*Nobody in the UK using BT as their ISP can visit the site*
(without a VPN) so there must surely be SOMETHING untoward
happening there!

A website shouldn't be able to do anything untoward.Â* Unless
your browser is a piece of ****.

The website belonging to Beauregard T. Shagnasty can, and DOES, do
untoward things!

Name one.

No matter WHICH browser I have used!

And you know exactly what's up, too. Nothing untoward is going on.
You're intentionally (lying, David) misrepresenting the site because
the truthful contents about you are an embarrassment for your wife,
even if you're too drunk most of the time to notice.

And Look - all the images have gone AWOL!!!

You've been restricted from obtaining more unauthorized copies that
you have an established track record of intentionally violating
others copyrights by uploading elsewhere and publically challenging
the copyright owner to do something about it. These are not things a
good or an honest person does, but they are things you've done, many
many times to many different people, going back a decade or more.




--
"A life without danger is a life not worth living" -- Moist von
Lipwig

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:45:45 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

~BD~ Stalker of Devon wrote:

On 11/11/2019 01:33, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
~BD~ Stalker of Devon wrote:
The website belonging to Beauregard T. Shagnasty can, and DOES,
do untoward things!

[SNIP copyrighted material you posted without permission]

Remind me of the name of the 'facility' which enables you to
block visitors to your website. It's not too effective is it?

It is called "Ban_Stalkers.exe".

No matter WHICH browser I have used!

And Look - all the images have gone AWOL!!!

No, they have not.
http://www.tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

I've both requested nicely that you take it down.

I've told you nicely dozens of times that I would remove the page
**IF** you stopped /STALKING/, and so far you haven't been able to
do that. The answer remains the same.

You haven't done so for more than a few days, so let the battle
begin.

What will you prefer - a WordPress Blog about you , a new
Facebook page, or both?

Do you want to be banned from those places as well? Do you want to
lose your Facebook account???

What you should do is flush all your whiskey down the toilet and
stop drinking. Your behaviour indicates you still are.

I stopped drinking alcohol on 21st March 2018.

My behaviour is my affair.

Not when it affects the lives of others.

I receive plenty of guidance from Mike Easter
(whomever *HE* may be in the real world!) - HOW I go about trying
to trip up the 'bad guys' is hardly YOUR concern, now is it?

You HAVE had guidance from Mike Easter, but you NEVER FOLLOW IT!

True, but, Mike Easter isn't exactly always very good with his umm,
advice or opinions.. See here for a very good example:

Message-ID:
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=155278479000

OUAT onceuponatime BD mistreated/used various public personae,
then/now Diesel bullies BD (and others), now various mail2news
anonymizer/s bully Diesel.

*** end paste

And there's various posts from Mike Easter trying to rewrite the
definition to the word stalker, as well as bully so that David Brooks
no longer fits the criteria. Did you see his latest excuse for not
responding to what he wrote above? Char called him out on it,
intellectually lazy. I believe there might actually be something to
that.


You need to switch to my drink of choice:
http://tekrider.net/pages/mydrink.php

I drink FAR too much coffee as it is! Always have done.

Not enough, it seems.

I could use that piccie of the coffee truck on your Facebook page
if you like. Is that OK? Do you have the copyright? Or did you
steal THAT image too?

You do NOT have explicit permission to use that image anywhere. I
do, granted to me by the photographer. If you use it, you have
once again committed a criminal act.

The number goes up by one. Doesn't phase him. Doesn't even matter to
him. As far as he's concerned, what he does is okay and everyone else
is the problem. Even Mike Easter seems to agree. rofl.




--
10 times as many people are killed by coconuts falling on their heads
as are eaten by sharks.

"Commander Kinsey"
newsp.0a3yu9nywdg98l@glass Mon, 11 Nov 2019 20:50:55 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

The website belonging to Beauregard T. Shagnasty can, and DOES,
do untoward things!

No matter WHICH browser I have used!

Such things can only occur if there's a security hole, which
browser writers should be fixing ****ing sharpish. Perhaps you
should report all these instances to the browser people so they
can protect the next version from him and any other miscreants.
Also, your AV program should also be able to block such things.
So that's TWO failures.

There's no failures, dumb ****.

Google David Brooks Devon stalker and read for yourself.

Pull your pants down and bend over, David wants more than a kiss now.
He's a former british navyman; get ready.




--
The black animal with white stripes is a plaything.

Kinsey wrote:
How hard can it be to run whatever the ad requests,
and ONLY omit the actual display on the screen ?

This hard:

Jeff-Relf.Me/userContent.CSS.TXT
Jeff-Relf.Me/Firefox_NoScript.PNG

Much of it is specific to each URL.
I change webpages on the fly, manually; most cannot.

"David" wrote

| I suspect that English is not your first language but I
| understand much of what you say! :-D
|

I should hope not. I speak American.

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

| Who hovers their mouse where they're looking? Unless he can track my eye
movements, he can't tell what I'm looking at.
|

They try. I suppose they have complicated formulae
to figure out what you're paying attention to.

| What I thought you were going to mention there is something absurd I heard
once, that your browser will actually tell the current page what page you
visited last! Ok, perhaps that's to find out what page is giving them
customers, but what if you were on a completely unrelated page and just
typed in a new URL manually? They could see pages you don't want them to
know about.
|
Look up referrer.

| A commercial company spying on you probably won't do you much harm. It's
the government you have to watch out for.
|
Feel free to believe that. You already said it once and
I answered, so I'll leave it at that.

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 23:43:28 -0000, Mayayana wrote:

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

| Who hovers their mouse where they're looking? Unless he can track my eye
movements, he can't tell what I'm looking at.

They try. I suppose they have complicated formulae
to figure out what you're paying attention to.

They lack a key piece of data. How the inside of my brain works. And if I'm anything like most people, nobody does anything with the mouse while looking around the screen. The mouse is only moved when something has to be clicked on, or the page needs scrolled.

| What I thought you were going to mention there is something absurd I heard
once, that your browser will actually tell the current page what page you
visited last! Ok, perhaps that's to find out what page is giving them
customers, but what if you were on a completely unrelated page and just
typed in a new URL manually? They could see pages you don't want them to
know about.
|
Look up referrer.

Just have. But it's not clear - do I have to click to site B from a link in site A? What if I'm on site A then type site B's URL into the address field? Can site B see I was just on site A a minute ago?

| A commercial company spying on you probably won't do you much harm. It's
the government you have to watch out for.
|
Feel free to believe that. You already said it once and
I answered, so I'll leave it at that.

Assuming you're referring to my statement about governments, I can't remember your answer, it must have been a long time ago. Do you really want the government finding out you don't pay your taxes?

"Commander Kinsey" wrote

| Look up referrer.
|
| Just have. But it's not clear - do I have to click to site B from a link
in site A? What if I'm on site A then type site B's URL into the address
field? Can site B see I was just on site A a minute ago?
|

There's no referrer if you enter a URL. But if you click a
link there is. However, you can disable it, at least in Firefox.
Search referrers tell more. They used to all tell the search terms.
Usually now they don't. But DDG is more private that Bing and
Google. Often these days Google will just send a google.com referrer.
It depends what Google page they came from, I think. Here's
an example of part of one:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...WhWMVewwmT19sA

q used to tell me what the person searched for. sometimes it still
does. cd is search position. In thi case someone came to my
site clicking the 29th link in the search returns. (That's not common.
Most people click one of the first 10.) I don't know what ved is. I
suspect it's some kind of user ID Google is using with ad partners.


In FF these two prefs relate to referrer:
Network.http.sendRefererHeader
network.http.sendSecureXSiteReferrer

I have no idea what your options are in Chrome.

It's not all bad. Websites can use referrers to figure out what people
are interested in and who's linking to them. Some sites will also block
you if you block referrers because they want to make sure you're
on their page when you use the site. For instance, if you click a link
to download a ZIP but there's no referrer to show that you clicked
the link on their site, they might block you.

A typical visit will send information to the web server that incudes
IP address, requested file, referrer and userAgent. Like so:

200.100.200.100 - - [07/Nov/2019:00:14:25 -0500] "GET index.html HTTP/1.1"
200 23753 "https://www.google.com/" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64)
AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/77.0.3865.75 Safari/537.36"

So someone has arrived from Google using Win8.1 and Chrome.
Their next request might be something like:

200.100.200.100 - - [07/Nov/2019:00:14:25 -0500] "GET logo.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200
23753 "https://www.yourwebsite.com/index.html" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3;
WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/77.0.3865.75
Safari/537.36"

They downloaded the homepage, index.html. That page has an image
called logo.jpg, so next the browser calls the server again and requests
logo.jpg. Notice that this time the referrer is index.html.

You can block referrers if you want to. Or if you just want
to do it occasionally, you can copy the link and paste it into the
address bar. That won't send a referrer. I otften do that when
I occasionally use Google search. Rather than let them send a
lot of information about me, I copy the link and fish out only
the actual URL, then paste that into the address bar.

| A commercial company spying on you probably won't do you much harm.
It's
| the government you have to watch out for.
| |
| Feel free to believe that. You already said it once and
| I answered, so I'll leave it at that.
|
| Assuming you're referring to my statement about governments, I can't
remember your answer, it must have been a long time ago. Do you really want
the government finding out you don't pay your taxes?

|
Huh? I do pay my taxes. A lot more than Billy Gates or Warren
Buffet. But what I said above was that both are a problem. Companies
cooperate with gov't, as with the PRISM project. Also, companies
are much more involved. Either way, I don't think it should be
illegal to systematically track people. An example of combined efforts
is Amazon's Ring security cameras. They're pushing them through
police depts. Very creepy stuff:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4...hout-a-warrant

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/n...for-free-stuff

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...media-neighbor

Then there are also things like privately owned surveillance
cameras at street intersections. It's becoming hard to
distinguish between corporate and gov't. Personally I find
spyware creepy and wrong, no matter who is doing it.

In numerous ways, various compaines are trying to own your
life and rent it back to you, while profiting from your private
information. It's happening if you use any phone apps or
home devices like Alexa. They're often convenient but it's all
part of an engineered lifestyle, such that most young people
these days would be helpless to function at all without doing
it through spyware apps: Google, Siri, Alexa, Uber/Lyft, GrubHub/
DoorDash, ApplePay/GooglePay.... On and on. Your life becomes
a commercial transaction. If you're really evading taxes then
you should be very worried about using a cellphone, apps, and
3rd-party payment.

On 13/11/2019 03:07, Mayayana wrote:
If you're really evading taxes then
you should be very worried about using a cellphone, apps, and
3rd-party payment.

I agree with that statement 100%!

Thanks for such an informative post, Mayayana. I'll take a look at the
links you posted later on.

When someone is squeaky clean, like you and me, why are YOU so very,
very, careful with what you do on-line?

Are you, perhaps, fearful of those carrying out law enforcement duties?

"Commander Kinsey"
newsp.0a5gvmwhwdg98l@glass Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:17:36 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 09:02:45 -0000, Diesel
wrote:

"Commander Kinsey"
newsp.0a3yu9nywdg98l@glass Mon, 11 Nov 2019 20:50:55 GMT in
alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

The website belonging to Beauregard T. Shagnasty can, and DOES,
do untoward things!

No matter WHICH browser I have used!

Such things can only occur if there's a security hole, which
browser writers should be fixing ****ing sharpish. Perhaps you
should report all these instances to the browser people so they
can protect the next version from him and any other miscreants.
Also, your AV program should also be able to block such things.
So that's TWO failures.

There's no failures, dumb ****.

There are failures in the browser coding if they let nasty things
through.

This isn't one of those cases.

David may be incorrect about that particular one

No may be about it. He is. He's intentionally besmirching the site
because he has an issue with a specific page on the site and has
otherwise failed to have the specific page removed.

A page he specifically challenged and demanded the web administrator
create, btw. The page does NOT contain lies or any misleading
statements about David Brooks. Instead, the page exposes him for
exactly what he is, and it ****es him off, royally.

I realize you're the same guy who once went by James Wilkerson Sword
and a long since forgotten pile of other nyms. So, I already know
that you intentionally post stupid **** to get a rise out of people.
Your driving around using no brakes to improve fuel efficiency
thread was a ****ing riot.


Google David Brooks Devon stalker and read for yourself.

Pull your pants down and bend over, David wants more than a kiss
now. He's a former british navyman; get ready.

Former. I could outrun him.

He's drunk most of the time, so you're probably right even if you
aren't in good shape.


--
The decision doesn't have to be logical, it was unanimous.

David Tue, 12
Nov 2019 19:25:50 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:

[snip]

He was really ****ed-off that I kept a copy of the video he
naively posted of himself showing us around his computer 'Lab'.

Umm, have you been drinking ahead of your normal routine? An extra
bottle or two maybe? How is my putting a video on my own personal
website being naive? There's nothing illegal about the contents,
despite your repeated claims otherwise, many times now.

You even went so far as to claim I had a lisp of some sort. Well,
asshat, I've since posted two HV videos, one has audio... Where's that
****ing lisp or any other speech issue you claimed I had? Oh that's
right, another ****ing lie on your part. Surprised, I am not.

Here's an easy to remember link to my videos, David. It'll make things
a little easier for your stalking efforts in the future, ok? Feel free
to subscribe too; youtube will let you know (if you want it to) each
time I post a new video for you to leech.

https://tinyurl.com/gremlinslab

These are on youtube and I can't realistically prevent you from making
unauthorized copies and passing them around just as you did with the
edited version of the first video you knowingly infringed, years ago.
These videos won't help you to stalk me though. Not anymore so than my
lab video did.

Sadly, I lost the soundtrack - maybe he'll share a good copy with
you if you ask him nicely.

LOL. Lemme understand this (I'm ****ing around, I know what you did
already); you somehow lost the soundtrack (soundtrack? I didn't know
I'd released a movie) from the original avi file, and yet, the video
section didn't magically disappear too?

So, why were you working with the original copy you had, and what were
you doing with it that caused you to damage it? And why in the **** did
you further reduce the video quality by re-encoding it into another
format?

Here's an image which is a bit like him:-
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-v...-man-working-o
n-computer-84544696

LOL, no it isn't. I don't expect any honesty from you though. You've
never surprised me.


--
Always store beer in a dark place.

"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.



--
'Raise your glass to the comrades we've lost.'