Configuring Home Network

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by John, Jul 17, 2005.

  1. John

    John Guest

    I am in the process of trying to add a computer to a home network that
    have two machines already on it.

    So far I have got all machines set up on the same Network group and
    with Internet access.

    The new machine though, I can not connect to it from the other
    computers. I get a pop-up which has a guest account filled out for me
    and asking me to enter a password.

    How do I set it up so that I can access without password?

    I can connect from the new system to the other two systems without any
    problems, but the other way around I need to somehow allow the other
    two systems access.

    Thanks for any help

    John
     
    John, Jul 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John

    Duane Arnold Guest

    John wrote:

    > I am in the process of trying to add a computer to a home network that
    > have two machines already on it.
    >
    > So far I have got all machines set up on the same Network group and
    > with Internet access.
    >
    > The new machine though, I can not connect to it from the other
    > computers. I get a pop-up which has a guest account filled out for me
    > and asking me to enter a password.
    >
    > How do I set it up so that I can access without password?
    >
    > I can connect from the new system to the other two systems without any
    > problems, but the other way around I need to somehow allow the other
    > two systems access.
    >


    Is asking to much to supply the O/S(s) in question?

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John

    John Guest

    User Permissions - was Re: Configuring Home Network

    I have been taking a look at the following web page:

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304040

    I have been able to get the new system set up so the other computers
    can now access certain parts of it that I have chosen to share; eg
    folders with digital photos in.

    I just wondered how many people have a lot of experience with Windows
    XP when it comes to user permissions?

    I have three systems on a Network. One Win 98se, One XP Pro, the
    other XP Home. I am a little baffled by the access levels. If I want
    to allow one system (XP Pro) connected on the network to have level 4
    or 5 access to everything on the XP Home System how can I set this up?
    Is it possible to without letting the other system have the same
    access?

    Since I added the new XP Home machine to the network, there seems to
    be something else within the user accounts on the Pro machine. It says
    "ASP.NET Machine A..." It is listed as a limited password protected
    account? What is this? Is it the XP Home machine and the access it
    has to certain folder on my Pro machine?

    In XP Home, in the User account settings their seems to be two
    choices, either Administrator or Limited account.

    I have taken a look at the differences between the two types of
    accounts here:
    http://www.jmu.edu/computing/security/info/winadmin.shtml

    If a User is set up on a Limited account, are their any problems that
    could arise? It doesn't have a tick in the box that says "access and
    read all non-private files". Would this mean that the user would have
    trouble opening a lot of files? Even his own after he had created
    them? Would the user be able to save things still? I'm a little
    confused on this, and just what a Limited user can and can not do in
    terms of everyday computer use.

    I would like to prevent a few users from installing and running
    programs, but I would still like them to be able to run things already
    on the system. I wouldn't want there to be problems with running
    things like Explorer and Messenger.

    Cheers for any advice

    John
     
    John, Jul 17, 2005
    #3
  4. John

    Conor Guest

    Re: User Permissions - was Re: Configuring Home Network

    In article <>, John says...

    > I have three systems on a Network. One Win 98se, One XP Pro, the
    > other XP Home. I am a little baffled by the access levels. If I want
    > to allow one system (XP Pro) connected on the network to have level 4
    > or 5 access to everything on the XP Home System how can I set this up?


    You can't. XP Home doesn't have the same security features as Pro.


    >


    --
    Conor

    -You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room
    K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)
     
    Conor, Jul 17, 2005
    #4
  5. John

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Re: User Permissions - was Re: Configuring Home Network

    John wrote:

    > I have been taking a look at the following web page:
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304040
    >
    > I have been able to get the new system set up so the other computers
    > can now access certain parts of it that I have chosen to share; eg
    > folders with digital photos in.
    >
    > I just wondered how many people have a lot of experience with Windows
    > XP when it comes to user permissions?
    >
    > I have three systems on a Network. One Win 98se, One XP Pro, the
    > other XP Home. I am a little baffled by the access levels. If I want
    > to allow one system (XP Pro) connected on the network to have level 4
    > or 5 access to everything on the XP Home System how can I set this up?
    > Is it possible to without letting the other system have the same
    > access?
    >
    > Since I added the new XP Home machine to the network, there seems to
    > be something else within the user accounts on the Pro machine. It says
    > "ASP.NET Machine A..." It is listed as a limited password protected
    > account? What is this? Is it the XP Home machine and the access it
    > has to certain folder on my Pro machine?


    http://www.mvps.org/marksxp/WindowsXP/aspdot.php

    It's for applications that will run on your machine that will be using .NET
    technology. The applications can be Windows desktop or Web based
    application. Companies are now developing .NET applications which are now
    being developed increasingly in the private business sectors but has not
    made to the consumer sector on a wide basis. It's coming to the home
    consumer.

    >
    > In XP Home, in the User account settings their seems to be two
    > choices, either Administrator or Limited account.


    Yeah that's true.

    >
    > I have taken a look at the differences between the two types of
    > accounts here:
    > http://www.jmu.edu/computing/security/info/winadmin.shtml
    >
    > If a User is set up on a Limited account, are their any problems that
    > could arise? It doesn't have a tick in the box that says "access and
    > read all non-private files". Would this mean that the user would have
    > trouble opening a lot of files? Even his own after he had created
    > them? Would the user be able to save things still? I'm a little
    > confused on this, and just what a Limited user can and can not do in
    > terms of everyday computer use.


    The Limited account has some restrictions as indicated by your link.

    Here is some more info. I don't use the Home edition only Pro so I cannot
    tell you about the Limited account.

    http://service1.symantec.com/support/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2001100619543839

    >
    > I would like to prevent a few users from installing and running
    > programs, but I would still like them to be able to run things already
    > on the system. I wouldn't want there to be problems with running
    > things like Explorer and Messenger.
    >


    If you don't want a user to be able to install anything, then you don't give
    them Admin rights.

    http://labmice.techtarget.com/articles/winxpsecuritychecklist.htm

    I disable the Guest account, use Authenticated User on Shares and delete all
    other accounts of the share giving Authenticated User full access rights
    and I disable Simple File sharing on the Pro machines.

    And the machines are behind the protection of an appliance such as a NAT
    router.

    Duane :)
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 18, 2005
    #5
  6. John

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Re: User Permissions - was Re: Configuring Home Network

    Duane Arnold <> wrote:

    > It's for applications that will run on your machine that will be which
    > are now being developed increasingly in the private business sectors but
    > has not made to the consumer sector on a wide basis.


    It's too late now.

    > It's coming to the home consumer.


    It's a fucking pain in the arse.

    > Yeah that's true.


    That's what my father taught me.

    > The Limited account has some restrictions as indicated by your link.


    Some people just have too much time on their hands.

    > Here is some more info.


    Some people can't.

    > I don't use the Home edition only Pro so I cannot tell you about the
    > Limited account.


    I can not help you tell me about the limited account.

    > If you don't want a user to be able to install anything, then you don't
    > give them Admin rights.


    Do you want a user to be able to install anything?

    > I disable the Guest account, use Authenticated User on Shares and delete
    > all other accounts of the share giving Authenticated User full access
    > rights and I disable Simple File sharing on the Pro machines.


    You do and I'll bash your head into the concrete.

    > And the machines are behind the protection of an appliance such as a NAT
    > router.


    And you did it again.

    > Duane [IDIOTICON].


    You must get a lot of that in this business.
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 18, 2005
    #6
  7. John

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Re: You have my applogy for whatever Zodiac-K-boy-oops-there-girl-Drama-Queen-Lunatic in the Twilight Zone has said. ;-)

    <You can ignore the little lunatic.>
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 18, 2005
    #7
  8. John

    pcbutts1 Guest

    Re: User Permissions - was Re: Configuring Home Network

    pcbutts1 <> wrote:

    > Duane email me I got some info on your troll.


    Stalking is a criminal offence, pcbuttfuckwit1. Co-opting others into your
    crimes is also a criminal offence.

    HTH & HAND, stalker.

    > "Duane Arnold" <> wrote in message
    > news:4fCCe.161021$x96.129355@attbi_s72...
    >> John wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have been taking a look at the following web page:
    >>>
    >>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304040
    >>>
    >>> I have been able to get the new system set up so the other computers
    >>> can now access certain parts of it that I have chosen to share; eg
    >>> folders with digital photos in.
    >>>
    >>> I just wondered how many people have a lot of experience with
    >>> Windows XP when it comes to user permissions?
    >>>
    >>> I have three systems on a Network. One Win 98se, One XP Pro, the
    >>> other XP Home. I am a little baffled by the access levels. If I
    >>> want to allow one system (XP Pro) connected on the network to have
    >>> level 4 or 5 access to everything on the XP Home System how can I
    >>> set this up? Is it possible to without letting the other system
    >>> have the same access?
    >>>
    >>> Since I added the new XP Home machine to the network, there seems to
    >>> be something else within the user accounts on the Pro machine. It
    >>> says "ASP.NET Machine A..." It is listed as a limited password
    >>> protected account? What is this? Is it the XP Home machine and the
    >>> access it has to certain folder on my Pro machine?

    >>
    >> http://www.mvps.org/marksxp/WindowsXP/aspdot.php
    >>
    >> It's for applications that will run on your machine that will be
    >> using .NET
    >> technology. The applications can be Windows desktop or Web based
    >> application. Companies are now developing .NET applications which
    >> are now being developed increasingly in the private business
    >> sectors but has not made to the consumer sector on a wide basis.
    >> It's coming to the home consumer.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> In XP Home, in the User account settings their seems to be two
    >>> choices, either Administrator or Limited account.

    >>
    >> Yeah that's true.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I have taken a look at the differences between the two types of
    >>> accounts here:
    >>> http://www.jmu.edu/computing/security/info/winadmin.shtml
    >>>
    >>> If a User is set up on a Limited account, are their any problems
    >>> that could arise? It doesn't have a tick in the box that says
    >>> "access and read all non-private files". Would this mean that the
    >>> user would have trouble opening a lot of files? Even his own after
    >>> he had created them? Would the user be able to save things still? I'm a
    >>> little confused on this, and just what a Limited user can and
    >>> can not do in terms of everyday computer use.

    >>
    >> The Limited account has some restrictions as indicated by your link.
    >>
    >> Here is some more info. I don't use the Home edition only Pro so I
    >> cannot tell you about the Limited account.
    >>
    >> http://service1.symantec.com/support/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2001100619543839
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I would like to prevent a few users from installing and running
    >>> programs, but I would still like them to be able to run things
    >>> already on the system. I wouldn't want there to be problems with
    >>> running things like Explorer and Messenger.
    >>>

    >>
    >> If you don't want a user to be able to install anything, then you
    >> don't give
    >> them Admin rights.
    >>
    >> http://labmice.techtarget.com/articles/winxpsecuritychecklist.htm
    >>
    >> I disable the Guest account, use Authenticated User on Shares and
    >> delete all
    >> other accounts of the share giving Authenticated User full access
    >> rights and I disable Simple File sharing on the Pro machines.
    >>
    >> And the machines are behind the protection of an appliance such as
    >> a NAT router.
    >>
    >> Duane :)
     
    pcbutts1, Jul 18, 2005
    #8
  9. John

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Re: Fee, fee, fi, fi, fo-fo, fum look at Miss Zodaic-K-boy-oops-she-is-a-lunatic look at how she runs. ;-)

    <Sing it with me K-Girl-Lunatic you know the tune.>

    <She's a big time lunatic look at how she acts.>

    <She's carzed righteous clown how about that.>

    <She's the Devil with the blue dress, blue dress, blue dress,>

    <Devil with the blue dress on>

    <SING IT>

    <Devil with the blue dress, blue dress, blue dress,>

    <Devil with the blue dress on>

    <She's hangs in the Twilight Zone and don't know how to act.>

    <The sign post is up ahead and you can't miss that.>

    <Good golly, Miss K-Loon>

    <You sure are a lunatic impersonator dog.>

    <Good golly, Miss K-Loon>

    <You really are a Drama Queen dog.>

    <You're impersonator Drama Queen Devil with the blue dress, blue dress, blue
    dress,>

    <impersonator Drama Queen Devil with the blue dress on>

    <SING IT>

    <impersonator Drama Queen Devil with the blue dress, blue dress, blue
    dress,>

    <impersonator Drama Queen Devil with the blue dress on>

    <Oops, I should stop having so much big time fun.>

    <EOR>

    <vbg>
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 18, 2005
    #9
  10. John

    Art Deco Guest

    Re: User Permissions - was Re: Configuring Home Network

    pcbutts1 <> wrote:

    >pcbutts1 <> wrote:
    >
    >> Duane email me I got some info on your troll.

    >
    >Stalking is a criminal offence, pcbuttfuckwit1. Co-opting others into your
    >crimes is also a criminal offence.
    >
    >HTH & HAND, stalker.


    Please post a list of all the stalkers.

    >
    >> "Duane Arnold" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4fCCe.161021$x96.129355@attbi_s72...
    >>> John wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have been taking a look at the following web page:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304040
    >>>>
    >>>> I have been able to get the new system set up so the other computers
    >>>> can now access certain parts of it that I have chosen to share; eg
    >>>> folders with digital photos in.
    >>>>
    >>>> I just wondered how many people have a lot of experience with
    >>>> Windows XP when it comes to user permissions?
    >>>>
    >>>> I have three systems on a Network. One Win 98se, One XP Pro, the
    >>>> other XP Home. I am a little baffled by the access levels. If I
    >>>> want to allow one system (XP Pro) connected on the network to have
    >>>> level 4 or 5 access to everything on the XP Home System how can I
    >>>> set this up? Is it possible to without letting the other system
    >>>> have the same access?
    >>>>
    >>>> Since I added the new XP Home machine to the network, there seems to
    >>>> be something else within the user accounts on the Pro machine. It
    >>>> says "ASP.NET Machine A..." It is listed as a limited password
    >>>> protected account? What is this? Is it the XP Home machine and the
    >>>> access it has to certain folder on my Pro machine?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.mvps.org/marksxp/WindowsXP/aspdot.php
    >>>
    >>> It's for applications that will run on your machine that will be
    >>> using .NET
    >>> technology. The applications can be Windows desktop or Web based
    >>> application. Companies are now developing .NET applications which
    >>> are now being developed increasingly in the private business
    >>> sectors but has not made to the consumer sector on a wide basis.
    >>> It's coming to the home consumer.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> In XP Home, in the User account settings their seems to be two
    >>>> choices, either Administrator or Limited account.
    >>>
    >>> Yeah that's true.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I have taken a look at the differences between the two types of
    >>>> accounts here:
    >>>> http://www.jmu.edu/computing/security/info/winadmin.shtml
    >>>>
    >>>> If a User is set up on a Limited account, are their any problems
    >>>> that could arise? It doesn't have a tick in the box that says
    >>>> "access and read all non-private files". Would this mean that the
    >>>> user would have trouble opening a lot of files? Even his own after
    >>>> he had created them? Would the user be able to save things still? I'm a
    >>>> little confused on this, and just what a Limited user can and
    >>>> can not do in terms of everyday computer use.
    >>>
    >>> The Limited account has some restrictions as indicated by your link.
    >>>
    >>> Here is some more info. I don't use the Home edition only Pro so I
    >>> cannot tell you about the Limited account.
    >>>
    >>> http://service1.symantec.com/support/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2001100619543839
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I would like to prevent a few users from installing and running
    >>>> programs, but I would still like them to be able to run things
    >>>> already on the system. I wouldn't want there to be problems with
    >>>> running things like Explorer and Messenger.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> If you don't want a user to be able to install anything, then you
    >>> don't give
    >>> them Admin rights.
    >>>
    >>> http://labmice.techtarget.com/articles/winxpsecuritychecklist.htm
    >>>
    >>> I disable the Guest account, use Authenticated User on Shares and
    >>> delete all
    >>> other accounts of the share giving Authenticated User full access
    >>> rights and I disable Simple File sharing on the Pro machines.
    >>>
    >>> And the machines are behind the protection of an appliance such as
    >>> a NAT router.
    >>>
    >>> Duane :)

    >


    --
    Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler

    "It's less a process of "convertion" it's about the reality of matter and
    energy (all 8 [!] kinds of matter) ... and yes, that's how "they do it".
    We {aliens} call it phase-tuning or simply phase-ing.
    And no, you will have to find it out all by yourself. And yes, we
    {aliens} will make sure your technical advancement will no longer be
    faster than your spiritual one ... we'd rather let you perish on this
    planet. That's a promise, you monkey-fu*kers.
    HTH.
    C."
    -- Charles D. "Chuckweasel" Bohne's award-winning alien technology

    "That's what you expect from people who think that the
    cyberworld isn't "RL"."
    -- Dr. David Tholen, Psychic Astrologer
     
    Art Deco, Jul 18, 2005
    #10
  11. John

    Fakename Guest

    Re: User Permissions - was Re: Configuring Home Network

    First of all, I didn't read all of this post. I got part way through it
    and realized this: what you're trying to do is best done through a
    domain. P2P workgroups were never meant to handle NTFS security.

    You might be able to accomplish some of what you're after but it's going
    to be very complicated and there's A LOT that can and will go wrong. I
    will give you one tip though: matching credentials. If the credentials
    match windows will let you in. The obvious problem being that everyone
    has the same username and password there really is no security.

    The reason for this is: who is in charge of the security from the
    computer's stand point? That's where a domain controller comes in. In
    order to have complicated user rights spread over multiple machines
    there has to be an athoritative source for permissions, the domain
    controller.

    Unfortunately it gets more complicated from there... have fun.



    John wrote:
    > I have been taking a look at the following web page:
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;304040
    >
    > I have been able to get the new system set up so the other computers
    > can now access certain parts of it that I have chosen to share; eg
    > folders with digital photos in.
    >
    > I just wondered how many people have a lot of experience with Windows
    > XP when it comes to user permissions?
    >
    > I have three systems on a Network. One Win 98se, One XP Pro, the
    > other XP Home. I am a little baffled by the access levels. If I want
    > to allow one system (XP Pro) connected on the network to have level 4
    > or 5 access to everything on the XP Home System how can I set this up?
    > Is it possible to without letting the other system have the same
    > access?
    >
    > Since I added the new XP Home machine to the network, there seems to
    > be something else within the user accounts on the Pro machine. It says
    > "ASP.NET Machine A..." It is listed as a limited password protected
    > account? What is this? Is it the XP Home machine and the access it
    > has to certain folder on my Pro machine?
    >
    > In XP Home, in the User account settings their seems to be two
    > choices, either Administrator or Limited account.
    >
    > I have taken a look at the differences between the two types of
    > accounts here:
    > http://www.jmu.edu/computing/security/info/winadmin.shtml
    >
    > If a User is set up on a Limited account, are their any problems that
    > could arise? It doesn't have a tick in the box that says "access and
    > read all non-private files". Would this mean that the user would have
    > trouble opening a lot of files? Even his own after he had created
    > them? Would the user be able to save things still? I'm a little
    > confused on this, and just what a Limited user can and can not do in
    > terms of everyday computer use.
    >
    > I would like to prevent a few users from installing and running
    > programs, but I would still like them to be able to run things already
    > on the system. I wouldn't want there to be problems with running
    > things like Explorer and Messenger.
    >
    > Cheers for any advice
    >
    > John
    >
    >
     
    Fakename, Jul 18, 2005
    #11
  12. John

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Re: Yeah -- yeah Zodaic-K-boy-oops-she-is-a-lunatic-Drama-Queen in the Twilight Zone whatever. ;-)

    <whatever K-Girl-Loon>
    <You're crap is un-read.>
    <g>
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 18, 2005
    #12
  13. Re: Yeah -- yeah Zodaic-K-boy-oops-she-is-a-lunatic-Drama-Queen in the Twilight Zone whatever. ;-)

    Brian, <>, the gaunt aunt-eater who requires a cross-eyed
    fruit-cup to provide pity-fucks and keester gushing, wrote:

    > why the hudson river?


    Why won't you be my friend?

    > btw.


    Your post is verbal diarrhea. Search engines will catch that shit and spew
    it on computer screens all over the world. Please delete.

    > the bot should be randomizing its name(starting to get boring)


    A robot? Where?

    > However, good programming.


    Good morning? Who the **** do you think you're talking to?


    --
    Fred was here.
     
    Tahir al-Umar, Jul 18, 2005
    #13
  14. Re: Yeah -- yeah Zodaic-K-boy-oops-she-is-a-lunatic-Drama-Queen in the Twilight Zone whatever. ;-)

    Brian, <>, the supple Toilet-Tessie who yearns for a
    loudmouthed alpha female with a bulky stud meat to implement heavy-handed
    self-inflicted intercourse, wrote:

    > why the hudson river?


    Why did you go this way? Why didn't you go around by the ball park?

    > btw.


    What do you need a mother for?

    > the bot should be randomizing its name(starting to get boring)


    Chat robots are lame.

    > However, good programming.


    Good. I peed in it.





    --
    Fred was here.
     
    2-4-Diethyl-3-2-Methyl-1-Tribromophenyl-Methoxyben, Jul 18, 2005
    #14
  15. John

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Re: NO NO -- Zodaic-K-boy-oops-she-is-a-lunatic-Mouth let's get the rest. <g>

    <yeah>
    <whatever>
    <not read>
    <keep running your>
    <BIG Internet Mouth>
    <bye>
    <K-Mouth>
    <g>
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 18, 2005
    #15
  16. John

    Brian Guest

    Re: Yeah -- yeah Zodaic-K-boy-oops-she-is-a-lunatic-Drama-Queen in the Twilight Zone whatever. ;-)

    "2-4-Diethyl-3-2-Methyl-1-Tribromophenyl-Methoxybenzoyl-Benzazepin-1-Trichlo
    roethane"
    <2-4-diethyl-3-2-methyl-1-tribromophenyl-methoxybenzoyl-benzazepin-1-trichlo
    ted-women> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > Brian, <>, the supple Toilet-Tessie who yearns for a
    > loudmouthed alpha female with a bulky stud meat to implement heavy-handed
    > self-inflicted intercourse, wrote:
    >
    > > why the hudson river?

    >
    > Why did you go this way? Why didn't you go around by the ball park?
    >
    > > btw.

    >
    > What do you need a mother for?
    >
    > > the bot should be randomizing its name(starting to get boring)

    >
    > Chat robots are lame.
    >
    > > However, good programming.

    >
    > Good. I peed in it.
    >
    >
    >


    good stuff but the wrong bot. get the butthead changing his name now and
    again. oh shit! was that it? was it a different bot? hmmm the world will
    never know.
     
    Brian, Jul 18, 2005
    #16
  17. John

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Re: Oops ;-)


    >
    > question answered. fair enough.


    Just checking and I don't read 99% of that *clown's* posts I just return
    fire. The only time I see the lunatic stuff is when someone like you
    pops-up.

    That's EOR-American to K-*Woman*-Clown -- Equal Opportunity Ragger.


    <g>
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 18, 2005
    #17
  18. John

    Olden Doode Guest

    Re: Oops ;-)

    Duane Arnold <> wrote:

    >> question answered. fair enough.

    >
    > Just checking and I don't read 99% of that *clown's* posts I just
    > return fire. The only time I see the lunatic stuff is when someone
    > like you pops-up.
    >
    > That's EOR-American to K-*Woman*-Clown -- Equal Opportunity Ragger.
    >
    >
    > <g>


    i thought k-thing was male. why do you say shes woman?
     
    Olden Doode, Jul 18, 2005
    #18
  19. John

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Re: Oops ;-)

    Olden Doode wrote:

    > Duane Arnold <> wrote:
    >
    >>> question answered. fair enough.

    >>
    >> Just checking and I don't read 99% of that *clown's* posts I just
    >> return fire. The only time I see the lunatic stuff is when someone
    >> like you pops-up.
    >>
    >> That's EOR-American to K-*Woman*-Clown -- Equal Opportunity Ragger.
    >>
    >>
    >> <g>

    >
    > i thought k-thing was male. why do you say shes woman?


    That's because she is a girl. Att first I was reading all here stuff like
    she continually reads mine as we exchanged gun fire. I don't read here
    direct post crap to me anymore as it's the same old tired lunatic moo-ing.
    I have nothing against females most of the ladies are very good, have
    common sense and are respectfull to others as they make posts to help. I
    was told that she was a woman by someone who she has hounded over the few
    months that I have been coming 24hours.

    And I have also seen her basically destroy alt.computers with her non-sense.
    A woman has a certian way of expressing things/herself and you cannot miss
    it no matter how she acts like a want-to-be-man. No matter how she shape
    shits with various persona(s) and names. She is an unmistakable
    Lunatic-Drama-Queen that needs to be locked-up.
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 18, 2005
    #19
  20. John

    Olden Doode Guest

    Re: Oops ;-)

    Duane Arnold <> wrote:

    > Olden Doode wrote:
    >
    >> Duane Arnold <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> question answered. fair enough.
    >>>
    >>> Just checking and I don't read 99% of that *clown's* posts I just
    >>> return fire. The only time I see the lunatic stuff is when someone
    >>> like you pops-up.
    >>>
    >>> That's EOR-American to K-*Woman*-Clown -- Equal Opportunity Ragger.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> <g>

    >>
    >> i thought k-thing was male. why do you say shes woman?

    >
    > That's because she is a girl. Att first I was reading all here stuff
    > like she continually reads mine as we exchanged gun fire. I don't
    > read here direct post crap to me anymore as it's the same old tired
    > lunatic moo-ing. I have nothing against females most of the ladies
    > are very good, have common sense and are respectfull to others as
    > they make posts to help. I was told that she was a woman by someone
    > who she has hounded over the few months that I have been coming
    > 24hours.
    >
    > And I have also seen her basically destroy alt.computers with her
    > non-sense. A woman has a certian way of expressing things/herself and
    > you cannot miss it no matter how she acts like a want-to-be-man. No
    > matter how she shape shits with various persona(s) and names. She is
    > an unmistakable Lunatic-Drama-Queen that needs to be locked-up.


    Guess who was here, chopfuck.
     
    Olden Doode, Jul 18, 2005
    #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. =?Utf-8?B?REFSIGluIEhlcmM=?=

    Help in configuring my wireless network

    =?Utf-8?B?REFSIGluIEhlcmM=?=, Oct 29, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,503
    =?Utf-8?B?QnJ5YW4=?=
    Nov 1, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?U1BBUlRBTg==?=

    ISA 2000- Configuring the two network cards...

    =?Utf-8?B?U1BBUlRBTg==?=, Dec 22, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    3,276
    =?Utf-8?B?Q29saW4=?=
    Dec 28, 2005
  3. =?Utf-8?B?U0pT?=

    configuring printer on wirless network

    =?Utf-8?B?U0pT?=, Mar 1, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    814
    Jack \(MVP-Networking\).
    Mar 2, 2006
  4. brucegooglegroups

    configuring wireless laptop for access to secure network

    brucegooglegroups, Mar 10, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    5,490
    =?Utf-8?B?V1JLTkw4?=
    Mar 12, 2006
  5. pcbutts1
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    491
    Art Deco
    Jul 18, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page