Re: How would you fix a badly infected PC?

walterbyrd wrote

>
> Far Canal wrote:
>
> > Are you asking a question for the sake of it or do you have a problem
> > that requires fixing? There is no cure all for malware, like there
> > isn't a fix for every trojan or virus. Your childish *what if*
> > questions are pointless.
> >
> > You've been around Usenet for some time - so WTF are you multiposting
> > this all over the place?
> > alt.certification.a-plus
> > alt.comp.virus
> > alt.comp.anti-virus
> > alt.privacy.spyware
>
> Why do you have such a bug up your butt? My question was neither
> childish, nor pointless. I happen to know that malware infected PCs are
> very common. I am often tasked with cleaning such machines (as are many
> people who work with PCs). The question is entirely relevant, and
> appropriate, where I have posted it.

It's very apparent you've learned jack **** from what little work you've
done.


> Yes, I posted to all of four different groups. So what? I did that
> because not every person reads every group. I wanted an answer, or at
> least a discussion, so naturally I want to reach as wide a group as
> possible. I only posted to groups where I thought the question was
> appropriate.

Instead of being a ****wit in one group, you've gone for the jackpot in
4 groups. Multiposting is ignorant and ****ing stupid.


> Sorry to have put you into such a snit, and caused you to go into such
> a hissy-fit.
>
>

Far Canal

UH-oh, time to update my BSL.

smackie

smackedass

Mister wrote:
> Normally I would just let this go, but...
> Far Canal reminds me of the tough guy who wants to beat up the loud
> guy at a party,

We prefer them to ****witted top-posters like you. Bugger off!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dustbin Ko0k

There are a few things that I've heard about newspost etiquette that I've
never been able to understand. One, the stigma against cross-posting. As
long as it's not a spam or a troll bait that's being cross-posted, who cares
if you send a message to 2 or more different groups at once? It doesn't
bother me...

And 2 is this thing about top vs. bottom posting. Neither top or bottom
posting much bother me. What does bother me, is if a person replies to a
post (especially a long post), and addresses several different parts of the
post, underneath the parts that they choose to address. This makes a reader
have to read and scrutinize the whole message, from top to bottom, rather
than just look at the pieces that have been responded to. Usually, if I
reply to different pieces of a post, I'll wipe out everything except the
pieces to which I'm responding, and add my own blurb underneath it. Keeps
it more readable, and the topic in focus, I think.

smackedass

smackedass

The common sense, rational answer to the question. It's been my position
for years.

But. for many people, top-bottom-inline posting is a question of religion.
And, like all zealots, they defend their position with great passion,
profanity and frothing of the mouth. Revealing themselves, no matter how
much they know about computers, as run-of-the-mill dopes.

Mike


"smackedass" <> wrote in message
news:mcs0h.18$B44.14@trndny07...
>
> There are a few things that I've heard about newspost etiquette that I've
> never been able to understand. One, the stigma against cross-posting. As
> long as it's not a spam or a troll bait that's being cross-posted, who
> cares if you send a message to 2 or more different groups at once? It
> doesn't bother me...
>
> And 2 is this thing about top vs. bottom posting. Neither top or bottom
> posting much bother me. What does bother me, is if a person replies to a
> post (especially a long post), and addresses several different parts of
> the post, underneath the parts that they choose to address. This makes a
> reader have to read and scrutinize the whole message, from top to bottom,
> rather than just look at the pieces that have been responded to. Usually,
> if I reply to different pieces of a post, I'll wipe out everything except
> the pieces to which I'm responding, and add my own blurb underneath it.
> Keeps it more readable, and the topic in focus, I think.
>
> smackedass
>

MF

AMEN


"MF" <> wrote in message
news:ROCdndDHM-...
> The common sense, rational answer to the question. It's been my position
> for years.
>
> But. for many people, top-bottom-inline posting is a question of religion.
> And, like all zealots, they defend their position with great passion,
> profanity and frothing of the mouth. Revealing themselves, no matter how
> much they know about computers, as run-of-the-mill dopes.
>
> Mike
>
>
> "smackedass" <> wrote in message
> news:mcs0h.18$B44.14@trndny07...
> >
> > There are a few things that I've heard about newspost etiquette that
I've
> > never been able to understand. One, the stigma against cross-posting.
As
> > long as it's not a spam or a troll bait that's being cross-posted, who
> > cares if you send a message to 2 or more different groups at once? It
> > doesn't bother me...
> >
> > And 2 is this thing about top vs. bottom posting. Neither top or bottom
> > posting much bother me. What does bother me, is if a person replies to
a
> > post (especially a long post), and addresses several different parts of
> > the post, underneath the parts that they choose to address. This makes
a
> > reader have to read and scrutinize the whole message, from top to
bottom,
> > rather than just look at the pieces that have been responded to.
Usually,
> > if I reply to different pieces of a post, I'll wipe out everything
except
> > the pieces to which I'm responding, and add my own blurb underneath it.
> > Keeps it more readable, and the topic in focus, I think.
> >
> > smackedass
> >
>
>

SBFan2000