Avast silent mode problem...

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Ricardo, Sep 25, 2007.

  1. Ricardo

    Ricardo Guest

    Configuring Avast Home Edition I happened on a cool option called "Silent
    mode". If I get it right, is is supposed to automatically do the job in case
    of a certain problem, e.g. virus found without bugging the user. However if
    you switch the "Solent mode" on then another problem arises, whethter to
    choose "With general answer YES (OK)" or "With general answer NO (Cancel)".
    How do I interpret the two?! Which is more safe and restrictive? I am
    interested in a silent mode killing everything suspicious (even if there is
    some risk of a mistake) without bothering the user. I am afraid that some
    unexperienced users may unintentionally let a virus into the system. Is it
    possible to switch off any kind of Avast interaction with the user?
    Regards,

    --
    Ricardo
    Ricardo, Sep 25, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ricardo

    Sebastian G. Guest

    Ricardo wrote:

    > Configuring Avast Home Edition I happened on a cool option called "Silent
    > mode". If I get it right, is is supposed to automatically do the job in case
    > of a certain problem, e.g. virus found without bugging the user. However if
    > you switch the "Solent mode" on then another problem arises, whethter to
    > choose "With general answer YES (OK)" or "With general answer NO (Cancel)".
    > How do I interpret the two?! Which is more safe and restrictive?



    This is a totally stupid idea. A virus scanner is an intrusion detection
    system and should give the user a loud and clear alert if it detects something.

    > I am interested in a silent mode killing everything suspicious (even if
    > there is some risk of a mistake) without bothering the user.


    That's even more stupid. You're even trying the delete the only evidence of
    a compromise?

    > I am afraid that some unexperienced users may unintentionally let a virus
    > into the system.


    The do something against viruses, f.e. implementing a whitelist policy for
    programs. A virus scanner, however, won't protect against viruses.
    Sebastian G., Sep 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ricardo

    Ricardo Guest

    Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <> napisal w wiadomosci
    news:...
    > Ricardo wrote:
    >
    >> Configuring Avast Home Edition I happened on a cool option called "Silent
    >> mode". If I get it right, is is supposed to automatically do the job in
    >> case of a certain problem, e.g. virus found without bugging the user.
    >> However if you switch the "Solent mode" on then another problem arises,
    >> whethter to choose "With general answer YES (OK)" or "With general answer
    >> NO (Cancel)". How do I interpret the two?! Which is more safe and
    >> restrictive?

    >
    >
    > This is a totally stupid idea. A virus scanner is an intrusion detection
    > system and should give the user a loud and clear alert if it detects
    > something.

    Disagreed. Being the sys admin it is my job to check the logs and take care
    of potential threats. I do not want to involve and stress an unexperienced
    user who can do more harm than good.

    > > I am interested in a silent mode killing everything suspicious (even if
    > > there is some risk of a mistake) without bothering the user.

    >
    > That's even more stupid. You're even trying the delete the only evidence
    > of a compromise?

    Oh really?! And what if an unexperienced user chooses "No action" option
    reacting to a virus alert? And what if an experienced user chooses such
    option intentionally to compromise your system?!!! What do you say then,
    wise guy, heh?!

    Regards,
    Ricardo
    Ricardo, Sep 25, 2007
    #3
  4. Ricardo

    nemo_outis Guest

    "Sebastian G." <> wrote in
    news::

    > Ricardo wrote:
    >
    >> Configuring Avast Home Edition I happened on a cool option called
    >> "Silent mode". If I get it right, is is supposed to automatically do
    >> the job in case of a certain problem, e.g. virus found without
    >> bugging the user. However if you switch the "Solent mode" on then
    >> another problem arises, whethter to choose "With general answer YES
    >> (OK)" or "With general answer NO (Cancel)". How do I interpret the
    >> two?! Which is more safe and restrictive?

    >
    >
    > This is a totally stupid idea. A virus scanner is an intrusion
    > detection system and should give the user a loud and clear alert if it
    > detects something.



    I'm with Sebastian on this one. Anti-virus and other such software
    tools, are *aids* to achieving security. To think they can work without
    knowledge or supervision is not just ordinary folly, it is encouraging
    users to live in a fool's paradise.

    By all means make such programs user friendly, to the extent possible.
    But if you think you can make them idiot-proof for idiots (the most
    resourceful folks on earth in finding ways to sabotage themselves) then
    you are no better than they.

    What you suggest is equivalent to the fellow who, after being sold a big
    RV with cruise control, got out of the driver's seat and went back to the
    RV's kitchen to make himself a sandwich! After all, he had cruise
    control. (True story! And, yes, the RV crashed.)

    Regards,
    nemo_outis, Sep 25, 2007
    #4
  5. Ricardo

    Sebastian G. Guest

    Ricardo wrote:


    > Disagreed. Being the sys admin it is my job to check the logs and take care
    > of potential threats. I do not want to involve and stress an unexperienced
    > user who can do more harm than good.



    But you want to run Avast? Better check for a product that fits the job much
    better.

    >>> I am interested in a silent mode killing everything suspicious (even if
    >>> there is some risk of a mistake) without bothering the user.

    >> That's even more stupid. You're even trying the delete the only evidence
    >> of a compromise?

    > Oh really?! And what if an unexperienced user chooses "No action" option
    > reacting to a virus alert?



    Why should this be a problem? Alert is alert.

    > And what if an experienced user chooses such option intentionally to


    > compromise your system?!!!


    An experienced user would simply use a virus that doesn't get detected, at
    best one that doesn't have any defined signature at all.
    Sebastian G., Sep 26, 2007
    #5
  6. Ricardo

    Ricardo Guest

    Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <> napisal w wiadomosci
    news:...
    > Ricardo wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Disagreed. Being the sys admin it is my job to check the logs and take
    >> care of potential threats. I do not want to involve and stress an
    >> unexperienced user who can do more harm than good.

    >
    >
    > But you want to run Avast? Better check for a product that fits the job
    > much better.

    Before I do that I want to make sure that this is really impossible with
    Avast whose big advantage is that it is free and still has quite good
    reputation. For a number of reasons that I am not going to elaborate on,
    Avast just suits me. I posted a very concrete question concerning Avast
    configuration. If you don't know the answer, which seem very much like that,
    would you please stop that useless flaming and aggressive tone.

    >>>> I am interested in a silent mode killing everything suspicious (even if
    >>>> there is some risk of a mistake) without bothering the user.
    >>> That's even more stupid. You're even trying the delete the only evidence
    >>> of a compromise?

    >> Oh really?! And what if an unexperienced user chooses "No action" option
    >> reacting to a virus alert?

    >
    >
    > Why should this be a problem? Alert is alert.

    If an alert has a form of an interactive option, choosing "No action",
    "Cancel", "Continue", "Ignore" or whatever you call it, instead of "Delete
    file" or "Remove virus", can be a serious threat to the system. Is it so
    complicated, you dummy?!

    >> And what if an experienced user chooses such option intentionally to

    >
    > > compromise your system?!!!

    >
    > An experienced user would simply use a virus that doesn't get detected, at
    > best one that doesn't have any defined signature at all.

    There are different levels of experience, mind you. I am not in the zone
    zero of the NATO Headquarters but in a small university subnet, having a
    bunch of unexperienced users to protect, many a time against themselves. You
    definitely lack imagination to get it and obviously try to build up your
    sick ego on each and every occasion. Considering further discussion with you
    completely useless I announce the EOT.
    Regards,
    Ricardo
    Ricardo, Sep 26, 2007
    #6
  7. Ricardo

    Sebastian G. Guest

    Ricardo wrote:


    >> An experienced user would simply use a virus that doesn't get detected, at
    >> best one that doesn't have any defined signature at all.

    > There are different levels of experience, mind you.



    People can exchange software, mind you.

    > having a bunch of unexperienced users to protect,


    Why are you twisting virus scanning with protection?
    And heck, it seems like you're abusing Outlook Express as a newsreader. Why
    don't you start with the basics first by replacing your known vulnerable
    software?
    Sebastian G., Sep 26, 2007
    #7
  8. Ricardo

    Ricardo Guest

    Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <> napisal w wiadomosci
    news:...
    > Ricardo wrote:
    >> ...

    > People can exchange software, mind you.

    Your pathetic, man. Maybe on your machines users can freely exchange
    executables, not on mine. Have you ever heard of EXE authorized only system?
    Actually, Avast is just yet another means of widespread and tight protection
    implemented by myself, which I have succesfully tested for years now. Just
    fine tuning the system with a new antivirus and that's why asking a simple
    question.

    > > having a bunch of unexperienced users to protect,

    > Why are you twisting virus scanning with protection?

    Is your twisted mind trying to state that virus scanning is NOT one of the
    means of system protection?! And what is so shocking for you with regard to
    using the silent mode - actually implemented in lots of antivirus software.
    What is so incomprehensible about predefining specific behavior of the
    antivirus like deleting potentially dangerous files without discussing the
    problem all over again with a blonde operating MS Word?! Just a very
    standard approach. Your ignorance is actually unbelievable!

    > And heck, it seems like you're abusing Outlook Express as a newsreader.
    > Why don't you start with the basics first by replacing your known
    > vulnerable software?

    Oh, that's a good one. So, OE is the major vulnerability of the system,
    right? :) Pathetic again... I am speechless... Please cut it out, man.
    Further discussion is really pointless.
    May you have a good rest,
    Ricardo
    Ricardo, Sep 26, 2007
    #8
  9. Ricardo

    Sebastian G. Guest

    Ricardo wrote:

    > Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <> napisal w wiadomosci
    > news:...
    >> Ricardo wrote:
    >>> ...

    >> People can exchange software, mind you.

    > Your pathetic, man. Maybe on your machines users can freely exchange
    > executables, not on mine. Have you ever heard of EXE authorized only system?



    So you actually have a global no-exec policy in place?

    > Actually, Avast is just yet another means of widespread and tight protection
    > implemented by myself, which I have succesfully tested for years now. Just
    > fine tuning the system with a new antivirus and that's why asking a simple
    > question.



    The correct word is "detuning". According to your description, a virus
    scanner is superfluos and therefore definitely a decrease in security.

    >>> having a bunch of unexperienced users to protect,

    >> Why are you twisting virus scanning with protection?

    > Is your twisted mind trying to state that virus scanning is NOT one of the
    > means of system protection?!



    Yes, it's a trivial fact.

    > And what is so shocking for you with regard to
    > using the silent mode - actually implemented in lots of antivirus software.



    Yes, but not for the SOHO products. I think that Avast Enterprise Edition
    has such client-server architecture, that's why I told you for checking if
    you're using the right software at all.

    > What is so incomprehensible about predefining specific behavior of the
    > antivirus like deleting potentially dangerous files without discussing the
    > problem all over again with a blonde operating MS Word?!



    Simply that any sane person would even think of implementing such a horribly
    stupid policy.

    > Just a very standard approach.



    Only as much standard as many idiot admins are actually doing that. It has
    nothing to do with any security or sane administration.

    > Oh, that's a good one. So, OE is the major vulnerability of the system,
    > right?



    No, but more serious than your problem. You have a vulnerable software
    exposed to the net with scripting and in-memory exploit being a major attack
    vector, both trivially circumventing your whitelisting policy.

    > Pathetic again... I am speechless... Please cut it out, man.
    > Further discussion is really pointless.



    .... said the dirty address faker and lurked away.
    Sebastian G., Sep 26, 2007
    #9
  10. Ricardo

    nemo_outis Guest

    "Sebastian G." <> wrote in
    news::

    > According to your description, a virus scanner is superfluos and
    > therefore definitely a decrease in security.


    Right on, Sebastian. It's just I feel a little disoriented agreeing with
    you :)

    Regards,
    nemo_outis, Sep 26, 2007
    #10
  11. Ricardo

    Ricardo Guest

    Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <> napisal w wiadomosci
    news:...
    > Ricardo wrote:
    >> ...

    > So you actually have a global no-exec policy in place?

    Yes, if you cannot get plain English.

    >> Actually, Avast is just yet another means of widespread and tight
    >> protection implemented by myself, which I have succesfully tested for
    >> years now. Just fine tuning the system with a new antivirus and that's
    >> why asking a simple question.

    >
    >
    > The correct word is "detuning". According to your description, a virus
    > scanner is superfluos and therefore definitely a decrease in security.

    Look up a dictionary for "overprotection", smart alec. Such policy has some
    advantages especially in case one of the protective means fail to work
    properly. But of course, Mr. Perfect does never take that into account,
    right? :) "Detuning" makes sense only on highly overloaded machine where a
    few percentage of performance matters, which is not always the case. Also
    not taken into account by the local security wise guy, heh?

    >>>> having a bunch of unexperienced users to protect,
    >>> Why are you twisting virus scanning with protection?

    >> Is your twisted mind trying to state that virus scanning is NOT one of
    >> the means of system protection?!

    > Yes, it's a trivial fact.

    Gee, what bullshit! Read it aloud twice and think again what your saying,
    dummy.

    >> And what is so shocking for you with regard to using the silent mode -
    >> actually implemented in lots of antivirus software.

    > Yes, but not for the SOHO products. I think that Avast Enterprise Edition
    > has such client-server architecture, that's why I told you for checking if
    > you're using the right software at all.

    I already told you that for several reasons I am sticking with Avast Home
    Edition. Your too pompous to understand simple words people say to you.
    Typical for a twisted pseudo-rocket scientists.

    >> What is so incomprehensible about predefining specific behavior of the
    >> antivirus like deleting potentially dangerous files without discussing
    >> the problem all over again with a blonde operating MS Word?!

    > Simply that any sane person would even think of implementing such a
    > horribly stupid policy.

    This sentence souds completely out of context, as the rest of your post
    actually.

    > Just a very standard approach.
    > Only as much standard as many idiot admins are actually doing that. It has
    > nothing to do with any security or sane administration.

    Oh, sure. Your that only the lonely perfect admin spreading words of wisdom.
    Pathetic again.

    > ...
    >> Pathetic again... I am speechless... Please cut it out, man. Further
    >> discussion is really pointless.

    > ... said the dirty address faker and lurked away.

    Go jump in the lake, sucker.
    No regards this last time. Sorry for that :)
    Ricardo
    Ricardo, Sep 26, 2007
    #11
  12. Ricardo

    Sebastian G. Guest

    Ricardo wrote:

    > Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <> napisal w wiadomosci
    > news:...
    >> Ricardo wrote:
    >>> ...

    >> So you actually have a global no-exec policy in place?

    > Yes, if you cannot get plain English.
    >
    >>> Actually, Avast is just yet another means of widespread and tight
    >>> protection implemented by myself, which I have succesfully tested for
    >>> years now. Just fine tuning the system with a new antivirus and that's
    >>> why asking a simple question.

    >>
    >> The correct word is "detuning". According to your description, a virus
    >> scanner is superfluos and therefore definitely a decrease in security.

    > Look up a dictionary for "overprotection", smart alec. Such policy has some
    > advantages especially in case one of the protective means fail to work
    > properly.



    As long as the additional "protection" doesn't introduce any additional
    insecurity, which is inherent due to the increased complexity.

    In fact if your no-exec policy fails, you'd have much bigger worries than a
    lousy virus scanner.

    >>>>> having a bunch of unexperienced users to protect,
    >>>> Why are you twisting virus scanning with protection?
    >>> Is your twisted mind trying to state that virus scanning is NOT one of
    >>> the means of system protection?!

    >> Yes, it's a trivial fact.

    > Gee, what bullshit! Read it aloud twice and think again what your saying,
    > dummy.



    No, it's a trivial fact. A virus scanner doesn't provide protection because
    it's reliability is zero. Trivially, because an attacker can simply choose a
    malware that doesn't have any categorized signature yet, and even further
    can change itself to omit any permanent signature at all.

    > I already told you that for several reasons I am sticking with Avast Home
    > Edition.



    Beside not having read any such reason, your argument is bullshit. You might
    as well give me reasons why you'd like to nail a pudding on the wall.

    >>> What is so incomprehensible about predefining specific behavior of the
    >>> antivirus like deleting potentially dangerous files without discussing
    >>> the problem all over again with a blonde operating MS Word?!

    >> Simply that any sane person would even think of implementing such a
    >> horribly stupid policy.

    > This sentence souds completely out of context, as the rest of your post
    > actually.



    Then go forth and implement your "delete every file that produces a false
    alert"-policy!

    > Oh, sure. Your that only the lonely perfect admin spreading words of wisdom.
    > Pathetic again.



    "I have no argument" would be much shorter to express your point.
    Sebastian G., Sep 26, 2007
    #12
  13. Ricardo

    Sebastian G. Guest

    Ricardo wrote:

    > Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <> napisal w wiadomosci
    > news:...
    >> Ricardo wrote:
    >>> ...

    >> So you actually have a global no-exec policy in place?

    > Yes, if you cannot get plain English.
    >
    >>> Actually, Avast is just yet another means of widespread and tight
    >>> protection implemented by myself, which I have succesfully tested for
    >>> years now. Just fine tuning the system with a new antivirus and that's
    >>> why asking a simple question.

    >>
    >> The correct word is "detuning". According to your description, a virus
    >> scanner is superfluos and therefore definitely a decrease in security.

    > Look up a dictionary for "overprotection", smart alec. Such policy has some
    > advantages especially in case one of the protective means fail to work
    > properly.



    As long as the additional "protection" doesn't introduce any additional
    insecurity, which is inherent due to the increased complexity.

    In fact if your no-exec policy fails, you'd have much bigger worries than a
    lousy virus scanner.

    >>>>> having a bunch of unexperienced users to protect,
    >>>> Why are you twisting virus scanning with protection?
    >>> Is your twisted mind trying to state that virus scanning is NOT one of
    >>> the means of system protection?!

    >> Yes, it's a trivial fact.

    > Gee, what bullshit! Read it aloud twice and think again what your saying,
    > dummy.



    No, it's a trivial fact. A virus scanner doesn't provide protection because
    it's reliability is zero. Trivially, because an attacker can simply choose a
    malware that doesn't have any categorized signature yet, and even further
    can change itself to omit any permanent signature at all.

    > I already told you that for several reasons I am sticking with Avast Home
    > Edition.



    Beside not having read any such reason, your argument is bullshit. You might
    as well give me reasons why you'd like to nail a pudding on the wall.

    >>> What is so incomprehensible about predefining specific behavior of the
    >>> antivirus like deleting potentially dangerous files without discussing
    >>> the problem all over again with a blonde operating MS Word?!

    >> Simply that any sane person would even think of implementing such a
    >> horribly stupid policy.

    > This sentence souds completely out of context, as the rest of your post
    > actually.



    Then go forth and implement your "delete every file that produces a false
    alert"-policy!

    > Oh, sure. Your that only the lonely perfect admin spreading words of wisdom.
    > Pathetic again.



    "I have no argument" would be much shorter to express your point.
    Sebastian G., Sep 26, 2007
    #13
  14. Ricardo

    Ricardo Guest

    Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <> napisal w wiadomosci
    news:...
    > Ricardo wrote:
    > ...
    >> ...
    >> Look up a dictionary for "overprotection", smart alec. Such policy has
    >> some advantages especially in case one of the protective means fail to
    >> work properly.

    > As long as the additional "protection" doesn't introduce any additional
    > insecurity, which is inherent due to the increased complexity.

    Very arguable as all that you try to advertize as the universal truth.
    Actually there is no such thing, which you should know unless you are a very
    simple minded creature...

    > In fact if your no-exec policy fails, you'd have much bigger worries than
    > a lousy virus scanner.

    The scanner is quite decent, just for your information, Mr. Perfect.

    >>> ...

    >> Gee, what bullshit! Read it aloud twice and think again what your saying,
    >> dummy.

    > No, it's a trivial fact. A virus scanner doesn't provide protection
    > because it's reliability is zero. Trivially, because an attacker can
    > simply choose a malware that doesn't have any categorized signature yet,
    > and even further can change itself to omit any permanent signature at all.

    Have you heard of heuristics or is the word too difficult for you?

    >> I already told you that for several reasons I am sticking with Avast Home
    >> Edition.

    > Beside not having read any such reason, your argument is bullshit. You
    > might as well give me reasons why you'd like to nail a pudding on the
    > wall.

    Put that pudding onto your face, you pompous smart alec!

    >>>> What is so incomprehensible about predefining specific behavior of the
    >>>> antivirus like deleting potentially dangerous files without discussing
    >>>> the problem all over again with a blonde operating MS Word?!
    >>> Simply that any sane person would even think of implementing such a
    >>> horribly stupid policy.

    >> This sentence souds completely out of context, as the rest of your post
    >> actually.

    > Then go forth and implement your "delete every file that produces a false
    > alert"-policy!

    Have successfully done that for years now and recommend you do the same
    unless you come up with anything safer like cutting the electric cords of
    your comps followed by smashing network interfaces and the hard disks. Then
    nobody would be able to hack your machines. Good luck, you paranoid maniac!

    >> Oh, sure. Your that only the lonely perfect admin spreading words of
    >> wisdom. Pathetic again.

    > "I have no argument" would be much shorter to express your point.

    Yes on your side, definitely. Nothing more than flamboyant, paranoid
    bullshit, really. Now, give me a break, will you?
    Thanks in advance.
    Ricardo
    Ricardo, Sep 26, 2007
    #14
  15. Ricardo

    Sebastian G. Guest

    Ricardo wrote:


    >> As long as the additional "protection" doesn't introduce any additional
    >> insecurity, which is inherent due to the increased complexity.

    > Very arguable as all that you try to advertize as the universal truth.



    One must be incredibly stupid to not understand that complexity is the
    archenemy of security...

    >> In fact if your no-exec policy fails, you'd have much bigger worries than
    >> a lousy virus scanner.

    > The scanner is quite decent, just for your information, Mr. Perfect.



    Quite decent for a virus scanner, that is, well, lousy.

    > Have you heard of heuristics or is the word too difficult for you?



    I think this word doesn't mean what you think it means. Heuristic apporaches
    are an even lesser argument than pattern scanning.
    Sebastian G., Sep 26, 2007
    #15
  16. Ricardo

    Ricardo Guest

    Uzytkownik "Sebastian G." <> napisal w wiadomosci
    news:...
    > Ricardo wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> As long as the additional "protection" doesn't introduce any additional
    >>> insecurity, which is inherent due to the increased complexity.

    >> Very arguable as all that you try to advertize as the universal truth.

    > One must be incredibly stupid to not understand that complexity is the
    > archenemy of security...

    Your not only stupid but also a pompous asshole which makes you even more
    pathetic. FOAD and EOT.
    Ricardo, Sep 26, 2007
    #16
  17. Ricardo

    nemo_outis Guest

    "Ricardo" <> wrote in news:fdegih$l5t$:
    ....
    > Your not only stupid but also a pompous asshole which makes you even
    > more pathetic. FOAD and EOT.



    I'm not usually a fan of Sebastian, but in this thread, Ricardo, he has
    been beating you like a drum.

    You came here with a question. You did not like the answers. Hard cheese!

    Since then you've been playing the petulant fool.

    Regards,
    nemo_outis, Sep 26, 2007
    #17
  18. Ricardo

    Ricardo Guest

    U¿ytkownik "nemo_outis" <> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
    news:Xns99B79AB8B2ABEabcxyzcom@204.153.245.131...
    > "Ricardo" <> wrote in news:fdegih$l5t$:
    > ...
    >> Your not only stupid but also a pompous asshole which makes you even
    >> more pathetic. FOAD and EOT.

    > I'm not usually a fan of Sebastian,

    Not usually, means that sometimes you are his fan, doesn't it? In such case
    I can only say that I am very sorry for you.

    > ... but in this thread, Ricardo, he has
    > been beating you like a drum.

    Saying this without having been asked and specifically after EOF
    announcement means that you are really under the spell of you idol. Maybe
    you are even another schizophrenic identity of himself. I do not give a damn
    actually.

    > You came here with a question. You did not like the answers. Hard
    > cheese!

    Your right, I came here with a simple question, expecting a simple answer
    rather than aggresive bullshitting of some asshole with serious hang-ups
    hopelessly trying to cure his sick ego. My advice: do not hang out with the
    man or you'll soon be his look-alike, if not already...
    Take care,
    Ricardo
    Ricardo, Sep 26, 2007
    #18
  19. Ricardo

    nemo_outis Guest

    "Ricardo" <> wrote in news:fdejel$qj6$:

    > Your right, I came here with a simple question, expecting a simple
    > answer rather than aggresive bullshitting of some asshole with serious
    > hang-ups hopelessly trying to cure his sick ego. My advice: do not
    > hang out with the man or you'll soon be his look-alike, if not
    > already... Take care,



    No one asked for your advice. And that's just as well since it's clearly
    worth nothing.

    I have frequently jumped on Sebastian in the past on any number of topics.
    But when he's right, he's right - and I acknowledge it. And in calling
    your approach foolish and ineffective, Sebastian is spot on.

    And in calling you a petulant whiner for not listening to the advice you
    asked for, we are both right on.

    Regards,
    nemo_outis, Sep 27, 2007
    #19
  20. Ricardo

    Ricardo Guest

    U¿ytkownik "nemo_outis" <> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
    news:Xns99B7B4256FE93abcxyzcom@204.153.245.131...
    > "Ricardo" <> wrote in news:fdejel$qj6$:
    >
    >> Your right, I came here with a simple question, expecting a simple
    >> answer rather than aggresive bullshitting of some asshole with serious
    >> hang-ups hopelessly trying to cure his sick ego. My advice: do not
    >> hang out with the man or you'll soon be his look-alike, if not
    >> already... Take care,

    > No one asked for your advice. And that's just as well since it's clearly
    > worth nothing.

    Your one of those morons who must have the last word. I 'm gonna give you
    that satisfaction and won't reply to your next post that is coming for sure.
    Don't have too much time for a bunch of idiots beating about the bush.

    > I have frequently jumped on Sebastian in the past on any number of topics.

    Oh, so that's the case. Jumping on the guy and hopefully vice versa suggests
    that there is a kind of delicate relationship between you two, which
    actually explains a lot. Mr. Perfect and Mr. Right - what a nice couple,
    really. Now, please cut this gay whimpering and come out of the closet
    finally - you will feel a relief. Only choose a proper newsgroup before so
    as not to shock some kids coming here accidentally.

    > But when he's right, he's right - and I acknowledge it.

    Oh boy, and who are you to make such statements. I am becoming sick of your
    megalomaniac pseudo-objectivism.

    > And in calling
    > your approach foolish and ineffective, Sebastian is spot on.

    Heh, Sebastian again. Seems like you cannot stop thinking of your love.
    You'd better find yourselves a cozy place and decide who's jumping on whom
    next instead of overreacting your personal problems in public.

    > And in calling you a petulant whiner for not listening to the advice you
    > asked for, we are both right on.

    Why don't you just take your bullshit with you and kindly shove it. No
    regards this time to avoid unnecessary hypocrisy.
    Now good-bye butt monkey, welcome to my killfile! Made some room for your
    queen there to let you stay together :)
    Ricardo, Sep 27, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    860
    Silverstrand
    Aug 9, 2005
  2. andymacca

    PAgP - silent and non-silent modes

    andymacca, Mar 22, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,592
  3. English Patient
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,788
    Old Gringo
    Oct 4, 2004
  4. Unclaimed Mysteries

    "The address was conducted as directed...in the silent mode."

    Unclaimed Mysteries, Jul 1, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    290
    Unclaimed Mysteries
    Jul 1, 2005
  5. ace90210

    silent huner 4 graphics problem

    ace90210, Nov 12, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,683
Loading...

Share This Page