From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C2C4AE.1700D7C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   The process starts with the user opening a web page just as the =
report you posted claims.

   I'm not taking offense at you criticizing Microsoft.  I couldn't care =
less.  If you remember, this thread started with you making a claim of =
efficiency without defining what this means and in my view not = supporting
your claim.  My response was simply to question you for a = definition of
efficiency.  It branched off when you made false claims = regarding trying
to spin features which you had failed to support a = claim of inefficiency
as insecure.  I pointed out that there are fewer = reported issues with the
more feature rich players than there were with = the less feature rich
ones.  You then continued with false claims = regarding security issues in
other components and repeated these false = claims despite being corrected
many times.

   I also responded in part to what I believe to be a silly position you =
have taken that if a complex process has an undesirable result that you =
can claim any of the many steps or components in the complex process is =
responsible for the undesirable result on the premise that removing that =
step or component stops the complex process from completing.  It is this =
poor logic that allows one to blame you as the user as being responsible =
because you are a component in every such example.  You can also use the =
same logic to blame the warming of the Earth by the Sun since without =
this none of the undesirable results would be possible.  It's simply bad =
logic and I called you on it not because I took any offence.

   Now, just in case you read too much into this, people here post =
falsehoods and lies with regularity.  Look at Joe Barr and Mike Miller =
for examples.  There are often messages where people take silly = positions
or arrive at silly conclusions.  Adam comes to mind.  I reply = to a tiny
fraction of these including those that have some connection to = Microsoft.
 Only if something perks my interest or I'm in the mood do I = reply.  In
this thread you got my curiousity with your unsupported = claims of
efficiency.  From that point on you kept digging a hole for = yourself with
a long string of falsehoods and lies.  I find your = behavior puzzling. 
Had you wanted to demonstrate that there have ever = been issues with WMP
you need look no further than the couple that I = pointed out.  Instead you
got fixated on spinning an IE issue into a WMP = one.  What you think that
would help you with I don't know.  I believe = you only got on to the issue
of security after you failed in your claims = of efficiency and were using
that to distract from that failure.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:3e334ca5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e334583{at}w3.nls.net...
  >>And since you have forgotten, the complex scenario in the report we =
have
  been discussing did not need to use WMP to tell IE to open an HTML =
page as
  IE was already open and could have done it itself.<<

  this thread has been too long, remind me of how you came to the =
conclusion
  that IE was already open and how it could have done this itself? I =
thought
  the whole process was kicked off by the stealth commands in the media =
file?

   >  Anyway, I'm sure you are aware that you selectively edited my =
message
  when you replied to exclude some relevant points.<

  I did selectively edit it but I didn't mean anything by it. All I'm =
doing in
  these edits is quoting back what part of your post I'm replying to, if =
I
  don't quote back some section of it that's because I'm not addressing =
that
  section, that's all.

  >  You look slimey.<

  I consider it efficient. I consider it a waste of disk space on =
everyone's
  computer to keep an entire copy of the thread in each post.

  >  Maybe we should just stick with your silly philosophy and =
acknowledge
  that everything is your fault since it is your actions that would be =
the
  trigger for any vulnerability of this that you would be exposed to.
  Remember, it is your actions that are not safe by any stretch of the
  imagination.<

  Why is it you don't want anyone here to consider you the same as =
microsoft
  or to think your opinion is anything but your personal opinion but as =
soon
  as we critisize something MS you take it so personally? When you =
complain
  that you are being treated like you were MS this is the reason, you =
take it
  personal and then make it personal. I didn't mean to insult YOU with =
my
  media player comment, it was you who took it that way.

  If you can't separate yourself from MS, how can you expect us to?

  Geo.



------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C2C4AE.1700D7C0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   The
process starts with =
the user=20
opening a web page just as the report you posted claims.
 
   I'm not
taking offense at =
you=20
criticizing Microsoft.  I couldn't care less.  If you =
remember, this=20
thread started with you making a claim of efficiency without defining = what this=20
means and in my view not supporting your claim.  My response was =
simply to=20
question you for a definition of efficiency.  It branched off when
= you made=20
false claims regarding trying to spin features which you had failed to = support a=20
claim of inefficiency as insecure.  I pointed out that there are = fewer=20
reported issues with the more feature rich players than there were with = the less=20
feature rich ones.  You then continued with false claims regarding
= security=20
issues in other components and repeated these false claims despite being =

corrected many times.
 
   I also
responded in part =
to what I=20
believe to be a silly position you have taken that if a complex process = has an=20
undesirable result that you can claim any of the many steps or = components in the=20
complex process is responsible for the undesirable result on the premise = that=20
removing that step or component stops the complex process from =
completing. =20
It is this poor logic that allows one to blame you as the user as being=20
responsible because you are a component in every such example. 
You = can=20
also use the same logic to blame the warming of the Earth by the Sun = since=20
without this none of the undesirable results would be possible.  = It's=20
simply bad logic and I called you on it not because I took any=20
offence.
 
   Now, just
in case you read =
too much=20
into this, people here post falsehoods and lies with regularity. 
= Look at=20
Joe Barr and Mike Miller for examples.  There are often messages = where=20
people take silly positions or arrive at silly conclusions.  Adam
= comes to=20
mind.  I reply to a tiny fraction of these including those that =
have some=20
connection to Microsoft.  Only if something perks my interest or =
I'm in the=20
mood do I reply.  In this thread you got my curiousity with
your=20 unsupported claims of efficiency.  From that point on you
kept = digging a=20
hole for yourself with a long string of falsehoods and lies.  I =
find your=20
behavior puzzling.  Had you wanted to demonstrate that there have
= ever been=20
issues with WMP you need look no further than the couple that I pointed=20
out.  Instead you got fixated on spinning an IE issue into a WMP =
one. =20
What you think that would help you with I don't know.  I believe =
you only=20
got on to the issue of security after you failed in your claims of = efficiency=20
and were using that to distract from that failure.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:3e334ca5$1{at}w3.nls.net..."Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote in message news:3e334583{at}w3.nls.net...>=
>And=20
  since you have forgotten, the complex scenario in the report we =
havebeen=20
  discussing did not need to use WMP to tell IE to open an HTML page =
asIE=20
  was already open and could have done it
itself.<<this =
thread has=20
  been too long, remind me of how you came to the conclusionthat IE =
was=20
  already open and how it could have done this itself? I thoughtthe =
whole=20
  process was kicked off by the stealth commands in the media=20
  file? >  Anyway, I'm sure
you are aware that you=20
  selectively edited my messagewhen you replied to exclude some =
relevant=20
  points.<I did selectively edit it but I didn't mean =
anything by it.=20
  All I'm doing inthese edits is quoting back what part of your post =
I'm=20
  replying to, if Idon't quote back some section of it that's =
because I'm=20
  not addressing thatsection, that's
all.>  You look =

  slimey.<I consider it efficient. I consider it
a waste of =
disk=20
  space on everyone'scomputer to keep an entire copy of the thread =
in each=20
  post.>  Maybe we should just stick
with your silly =
philosophy=20
  and acknowledgethat everything is your fault since it is your =
actions that=20
  would be thetrigger for any vulnerability of this that you would =
be=20
  exposed to.Remember, it is your actions that are not safe by any =
stretch=20
  of theimagination.<Why is it you
don't want anyone here =
to=20
  consider you the same as microsoftor to think your opinion is =
anything but=20
  your personal opinion but as soonas we critisize something MS you =
take it=20
  so personally? When you complainthat you are being treated like =
you were=20
  MS this is the reason, you take itpersonal and then make it =
personal. I=20
  didn't mean to insult YOU with mymedia player comment, it was you =
who took=20
  it that way.If you can't separate yourself from MS, how can =
you expect=20
  us
to?Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C2C4AE.1700D7C0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4