«

I don't know if you have tried this yet but one thing
that you may have to look at is going physically to your
Win2003 box and looking through the local security
policies and looking for a policy allowing users log on
remotely. Try to include yourself into the list instead
of the group you belong to. if that doesn't work try to
download and install the winXP/2003 admin packet from
microsoft and use the remotes desktop ultility instead of
the one built into the system.
I think that should do it.

"Sam Curalov" <> wrote in message
news:5abd01c42d64$6ba8ca60$...
> I don't know if you have tried this yet but one thing
> that you may have to look at is going physically to your
> Win2003 box and looking through the local security
> policies and looking for a policy allowing users log on
> remotely. Try to include yourself into the list instead
> of the group you belong to. if that doesn't work try to
> download and install the winXP/2003 admin packet from
> microsoft and use the remotes desktop ultility instead of
> the one built into the system.
> I think that should do it.

Hmm, I haven't tried that yet, but it sounds fun! I just have one question
though. Hoo the phuck are you talking to?

--

KB - MCNGP "silent thug" #26

first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com

Easy, KB.

He is responsing to Seth Brammer's post on remote desktop
issue.

Peace,
Chop
>-----Original Message-----
>"Sam Curalov" <> wrote in message
>news:5abd01c42d64$6ba8ca60$...
>> I don't know if you have tried this yet but one thing
>> that you may have to look at is going physically to
your
>> Win2003 box and looking through the local security
>> policies and looking for a policy allowing users log on
>> remotely. Try to include yourself into the list instead
>> of the group you belong to. if that doesn't work try to
>> download and install the winXP/2003 admin packet from
>> microsoft and use the remotes desktop ultility instead
of
>> the one built into the system.
>> I think that should do it.
>
>Hmm, I haven't tried that yet, but it sounds fun! I just
have one question
>though. Hoo the phuck are you talking to?
>
>--
>
>KB - MCNGP "silent thug" #26
>
>first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com
>
>
>.
>

"chop" <> wrote in message
news:609901c42e0c$3267df90$...
> Easy, KB.
>
> He is responsing to Seth Brammer's post on remote desktop
> issue.
>
> Peace,
> Chop

It was a sarcastic, almost-rhetorical question. I was simply implying that,
instead of starting a new thread, the "OP" (I use the term loosely) should
have responed to the post to which he responded. Yeah, you heard me...should
have responded to the post to which he responded.

--

KB - MCNGP "silent thug" #26

first initial last name AT hotmail DOT com

Ken Briscoe opined, On 4/29/04 10:33 AM:

> It was a sarcastic, almost-rhetorical question. I was simply implying that,
> instead of starting a new thread, the "OP" (I use the term loosely) should
> have responed to the post to which he responded. Yeah, you heard me...should
> have responded to the post to which he responded.
>

Easy for you to say...