From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_08AC_01C75E95.133A14A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   You are playing word games and not arguing the point.  This is silly.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message
news:45eb90bc{at}w3.nls.net...
  You agreed with their examples of web and ftp, yet for me these might =
be=20
  critical services. But for someone who is only using their computer to =

  browse and do email there are a whole host of services they can =
consider=20
  non-critical.

  You don't seem to make any allowance for that.

  Geo.

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:45eb4555{at}w3.nls.net...
     No.

     We started this silly discussion when you interpreted the =
statements you=20
  attributed to symantec "Turn off and remove unneeded services" and =
"many=20
  operating systems install auxiliary services that are not critical" to =
mean=20
  any service which you would like to turn off regardless of whether it =
is=20
  needed or not which you described as " me shutting down all those =
extra=20
  services".  Somewhere in there you tried to define
"critical" with the =

  laughable "The best way to find out if a service is critical or not is =
to=20
  manually stop it and see if anything breaks, if nothing you need =
breaks then=20
  I guess it's not critical huh".

     I agreed with symantec and wrote "There is nothing wrong with =
disabling=20
  unnecessary optional services".  This isn't what you do.  What you do =
you=20
  wrote above which is to disable things you do not understand and look =
to see=20
  if you are able to perceive an effect that you would call a break.

  Rich

    "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:45eb2d2f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    Didn't we start by you saying symantec's words didn't mean what they =
mean?

    Geo.

    "Rich"  wrote in message news:45eb1331$1{at}w3.nls.net...
       Duh!  If the words had exactly the same meaning and connotations =
then=20
  we
    wouldn't likely have different words.  If you and geo would like to =
play
    word games instead of discussing the actual content go ahead.

    Rich

      "Hrvoje Mesing"  wrote in message
    news:45eb07a4{at}w3.nls.net...

      ?
      Not true.

      Critical CAN be needed as unneeded CAN be critical.
      Says my grandmother.

      ...

      ---
      M.



      "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e9d602$1{at}w3.nls.net...
         Roget's Thesaurus disagrees.  See
      http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/critical%20needed.

      Rich

      "Hrvoje Mesing"  wrote in message
      news:45e9a6fd{at}w3.nls.net...

      unneeded !=3D not critical.


      ---
      M.


      "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e6f39e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
         unneeded =3D=3D unnecessary =3D=3D optional =3D=3D not =
critical.

      Rich
      "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:45e6b7c7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
      Hmmm... "unneeded", "auxiliary", "not
critical", I don't see the =
term
      "unnecessary optional" in there at all Rich.

      Would you say the dns client service is unneeded, auxiliary, not=20
  critical?
    I
      certainly would unless you are on a large corporate LAN and you =
argued
    with
      me about it. See your idea of unneeded and mine are vastly =
different. To
    you
      unneeded is something that is not used at all, to me it's anything =
you=20
  can
      shut down without breaking the functionality you need.

      I would think the security guys at Symantec (the ones who made =
that
      recommendation) would think like me and judging from the size of =
their
      products lately, management and the programmers think like you.

      That would explain why they make such a recommendation and at the =
same
    time
      get exploited as a virus entry point..

      Geo.

      "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e66bb5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
         Better understanding, I don't think so.  Different opinion,=20
  absolutely.
      There is nothing wrong with disabling unnecessary optional =
services.=20
  What
      you do is flailing.

      Rich

        "Geo."  wrote in message=20
  news:45e64067$2{at}w3.nls.net...
        "Rich"  wrote in message news:45e4eb2b$1{at}w3.nls.net...

        >>   Now you are trying to read more into what symantec wrote.

        Or perhaps I just have a better understanding of that line of =
thought.

        Geo.


------=_NextPart_000_08AC_01C75E95.133A14A0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   You are
playing word games =
and not=20
arguing the point.  This is silly.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:45eb90bc{at}w3.nls.net...Yo=
u=20
  agreed with their examples of web and ftp, yet for me these might be=20
  critical services. But for someone who is only using their =
computer to=20
  browse and do email there are a whole host of services they can =
consider=20
  non-critical.You don't seem to make any
allowance for=20
  that.Geo."Rich"
<{at}> wrote in message news:45eb4555{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
  No.   We started this silly
discussion when you =
interpreted=20
  the statements you attributed to symantec "Turn off and remove =
unneeded=20
  services" and "many operating systems install
auxiliary services =
that are=20
  not critical" to mean any service which you would like to turn off =

  regardless of whether it is needed or not which you described as " =
me=20
  shutting down all those extra services". 
Somewhere in there =
you=20
  tried to define "critical" with the laughable
"The best way to =
find out if=20
  a service is critical or not is to manually stop it and see if =
anything=20
  breaks, if nothing you need breaks then I guess it's not critical=20
  huh".   I agreed with symantec
and wrote "There is =
nothing=20
  wrong with disabling unnecessary optional
services".  This =
isn't what=20
  you do.  What you do you wrote above which is to disable =
things you=20
  do not understand and look to see if you are able to perceive an =
effect=20
  that you would call a
break.Rich 
"Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:45eb2d2f$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
 =20
  Didn't we start by you saying symantec's words didn't mean what they=20
  mean?  Geo. 
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in =
message news:45eb1331$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
    =20
  Duh!  If the words had exactly the same meaning and connotations =
then=20
  we  wouldn't likely have different
words.  If you =
and geo=20
  would like to play  word games instead of discussing the =
actual=20
  content go ahead. 
Rich    "Hrvoje =
Mesing"=20
  <Hrvoje.Mesing{at}zg.htnet.hr&g=">mailto:Hrvoje.Mesing{at}zg.htnet.hr">Hrvoje.Mesing{at}zg.htnet.hr&g=
t;=20
  wrote in message  news:45eb07a4{at}w3.nls.net...=
   =20
  ?    Not
true.    Critical =
CAN be=20
  needed as unneeded CAN be
critical.    Says my=20
  grandmother.   
...   =20
  ---   
M.   
"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote in message news:45e9d602$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
      =20
  Roget's Thesaurus disagrees. 
See    http://t" target="new">http://t=">http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/critical%20needed">http://t=
hesaurus.reference.com/browse/critical%20needed.  &=
nbsp;=20
  Rich    "Hrvoje
Mesing" <Hrvoje.Mesing{at}zg.htnet.hr&g=">mailto:Hrvoje.Mesing{at}zg.htnet.hr">Hrvoje.Mesing{at}zg.htnet.hr&g=
t;=20
  wrote in message    news:45e9a6fd{at}w3.nls.net...=
   =20
  unneeded !=3D not
critical.   =20
  ---   
M.   
"Rich" =
<{at}>=20
  wrote in message news:45e6f39e$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
      =20
  unneeded =3D=3D unnecessary =3D=3D optional =3D=3D not =
critical.   =20
  Rich    "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message news:45e6b7c7$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
   =20
  Hmmm... "unneeded", "auxiliary", "not
critical", I don't see the=20
  term    "unnecessary
optional" in there at all=20
  Rich.    Would you say the
dns client service =
is=20
  unneeded, auxiliary, not critical?  =
I   =20
  certainly would unless you are on a large corporate LAN and you=20
  argued  with   
me about it. See your idea =
of=20
  unneeded and mine are vastly different. To  =
you   =20
  unneeded is something that is not used at all, to me it's anything you =

  can    shut down without
breaking the =
functionality you=20
  need.    I would think the
security guys at =
Symantec=20
  (the ones who made that   
recommendation) would =
think like=20
  me and judging from the size of
their    products =
lately,=20
  management and the programmers think like =
you.    That=20
  would explain why they make such a recommendation and at the =
same =20
  time    get exploited as a virus entry=20
  point..   
Geo.    =
"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote in message news:45e66bb5$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
      =20
  Better understanding, I don't think so.  Different opinion,=20
  absolutely.    There is
nothing wrong with =
disabling=20
  unnecessary optional services.
What    you do =
is=20
  flailing.    =
Rich     =20
  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
=
wrote in=20
  message news:45e64067$2{at}w3.nls.net...=
     =20
  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:45e4eb2b$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
     =20
  >>   Now you are trying to read more into what =
symantec=20
 
wrote.     
Or perhaps I just have a =
better=20
  understanding of that line of =
thought.     =20
  Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_08AC_01C75E95.133A14A0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5