«

za kAT wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:41:44 -0500, Peter Foldes wrote:
>
>> Peter
>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>
> Uh, shouldn't that be
>
> httpS://www.microsoft.com/protect/ you know to be protected and all?

Why?

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:30:09 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:

> za kAT wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:41:44 -0500, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>
>>> Peter
>>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>>
>> Uh, shouldn't that be
>>
>> httpS://www.microsoft.com/protect/ you know to be protected and all?
>
> Why?

Because it won't load SSL?
--
- Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416.
Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:41:44 -0500, Peter Foldes wrote:

> Peter
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect

Dearest Peter

The thing I really like about Usenet is that it can only tell the
truth!

Here is my original post <>

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi...2d%40bt.com%3E

Everyone can see for themselves that I changed nothing and it is *you*
who lie!

Whilst on the subject of citing post references, you say in this post
:
<ic4nk1$bb6$>

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi...za.aioe.org%3E

Quote:

That is the link you were posting back in 08. Bully just brought it to
your attention that it was you who posted that link originally stating
that it was you who helped build it. What a 2 faced screwed up Troll
you are

And now you want to wash your hands from it. You are a real sick
****up

**

Btw - here's a link to your post in Google Groups too.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...53aae972?hl=en

**

Now then! - Both you and I *know* that to be *untrue*, don't we, PF?


Ah! But you say it is _me_ who is lying! Well then, here's a chance to
*prove* to everyone that you are not a cheat\forger and a liar. All
you
need do is post the relevant Message-ID in response to this current
post
of mine.

Will you do that - now - Peter Foldes ...... or are you not that
clever?

I'm waiting with bated breath!

Signed,

"Lunchturds"
--
I am known as LockBox on the Wilders Security forums. pls do not
say bad words or do anything to frighten me. I am tender.

za kAT wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:30:09 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> za kAT wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:41:44 -0500, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>>>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>>>
>>> Uh, shouldn't that be
>>>
>>> httpS://www.microsoft.com/protect/ you know to be protected and all?
>>
>> Why?
>
> Because it won't load SSL?

Who cares? What's to protect in that connection?

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:53:00 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:

> za kAT wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:30:09 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> za kAT wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:41:44 -0500, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter
>>>>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>>>>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>>>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>>>>
>>>> Uh, shouldn't that be
>>>>
>>>> httpS://www.microsoft.com/protect/ you know to be protected and all?
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because it won't load SSL?
>
> Who cares? What's to protect in that connection?

Turn around. See that jet plane that just flew right over the point on
your head?
--
- Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416.
Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!

za kAT wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:53:00 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> za kAT wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:30:09 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>> za kAT wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:41:44 -0500, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>>>>>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>>>>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, shouldn't that be
>>>>>
>>>>> httpS://www.microsoft.com/protect/ you know to be protected and all?
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Because it won't load SSL?
>>
>> Who cares? What's to protect in that connection?
>
> Turn around. See that jet plane that just flew right over the point on
> your head?

Is that your answer?

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:57:53 -0500, za kAT wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:53:00 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> za kAT wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:30:09 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>> za kAT wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:41:44 -0500, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>>>>>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>>>>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, shouldn't that be
>>>>>
>>>>> httpS://www.microsoft.com/protect/ you know to be protected and all?
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Because it won't load SSL?
>>
>> Who cares? What's to protect in that connection?
>
> Turn around. See that jet plane that just flew right over the point on
> your head?

Sometimes I honestly wish there was no Internet. It's made life,
relationships, choices, trust, etc. so very complicated.

Signed,

Lunchturds
______________
/ \
| WHAAAAAAAAAAA! |
\__ _________/
/ ,'
_.~._ /,'
,~'.~@~.`~.
/ : _..._ : \
{ :,"''\\`".: }
`C) 0 _ 0 (--.._,-"""-.__
( ) @ ( ) `.
`-.-_-.-' \
,' \ / ,` ;`-._,-.
,' ,'/ ,' `---t.,-. \_
,--.,',' ,'----.__\ _( \----'
'///,`,--.,' `-.__.--' `. )
'///,' `-`
--
I am known as LockBox on the Wilders Security forums. pls do not
say bad words or do anything to frighten me. I am tender.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:00:04 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:

> za kAT wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:53:00 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> za kAT wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:30:09 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> za kAT wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:41:44 -0500, Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>>>>>>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>>>>>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh, shouldn't that be
>>>>>>
>>>>>> httpS://www.microsoft.com/protect/ you know to be protected and all?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> Because it won't load SSL?
>>>
>>> Who cares? What's to protect in that connection?
>>
>> Turn around. See that jet plane that just flew right over the point on
>> your head?
>
> Is that your answer?

I believe it is important to interject here that questions are poor
forms of answering questions. lol
--
Live To Spend It

On Dec 22, 5:41*am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If they used Windows with the latest patches from Norton, arguably
> this would never have happened. *But thank Allah for Linux and "virus
> free computing", *LOL!

Wrong!

Remember, Norton doesn't actually prevent malware from downloading
viruses into the computer, it just detects the infected files and
quarantines or removes them. The agent is almost never "detected" or
blocked - because it's Microsoft's standard functionality.

> RL

> http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/N...aspx?id=199475

> Last month, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United
> Nation’s nuclear watchdog, said that Iran had suspended work at its
> nuclear-field production facilities, likely a result of the Stuxnet
> virus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
<quote>
Stuxnet is a Windows-specific computer worm[Notes 1] first discovered
in July 2010 by VirusBlokAda, a security firm based in Belarus.
</quote>

Worse, it gets Windows to corrupt industrial control devices.

> According to Langer, Iran’s best move would be to throw out all of the
> computers that have been infected by the worm, which he said was the
> most “advanced and aggressive malware in history.” But, he said, even
> once all of the computers were thrown out, Iran would have to ensure
> that computers used by outside contractors were also clean of Stuxnet.

Sounds like he's recommending that they should get rid of all those
Windows computers. Since the infected computers could corrupt the
controllers again.

> “It is extremely difficult to clean up installations from Stuxnet.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:19:32 -0800 (PST), Rex Ballard wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
> <quote>
> Stuxnet is a Windows-specific computer worm[Notes 1] first discovered
> in July 2010 by VirusBlokAda, a security firm based in Belarus.
> </quote>
>
> Worse, it gets Windows to corrupt industrial control devices.

Like this one?

http://www.comeindustrial.com/A1088V-JR.JPG
--
- Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416.
Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!