Virus Guy crossposted:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Virus Troll crossposted:
> You have a problem with the groups I've cross-posted to?

No, it was merely the reader's default attribution line.

> You don't think that the info about the ZeroAccess botnet is applicable
> to the 3 groups?

Not really. This botnet, and the means it uses to infect, is not a virus, 
so why post it to two groups about viruses?

> Or are you one of the usenet morons that thinks that crossposting
> between usenet groups shouldn't happen, regardless how many thousand
> groups exist and the similarity or commonality they may have?

Crossposting in appropriate situations is fine. You didn't have one.

>>> or the lie that the bloated NT-based Windows is or could ever be
>>> secured and protected from it's [SIC] own internal complexity and
>>> incredibly bad coding.

Any version of Windows fits that description.

>> Isn't this where you are supposed to insert your silly advice telling
>> everyone to "upgrade" to Windows 98?  LOL
> 
> Ah, laughing klown.

(Yes, I *really was* laughing!)

> I was supposed to include comments about win-98, so you and others could
> feel superior about NT and laugh away the very real history of
> vulnerability that NT just can't shake off or rise above, despite
> thousands of patches and fixes created over many years.

I don't feel superior to anyone. You just make me laugh.

> So no- I didn't include any sort of comment about 98.
> 
> So now the ball is in your court to address my ridicule of NT and it's 
[SIC]
> line of perpetually vulnerable versions of Windoze.  Or fade back into
> the woodwork where you came from.

All versions of Windows are vulnerable, even your precious 17-year-old 
Windows 98.

-- 
   -bts
   -This space for rent, but the price is high
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2