If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
MEB is a fraud - Who is * Guy and various other. They are allthe same moron and liar
Hey 98 Guy, learn how to PROPERLY create new discussions... I suppose this is beyond your abilities since you constantly display you ARE a moron... On 05/14/2010 08:59 AM, 98 Guy wrote: MEB wrote: Naturally we 98 users have been applying the IE6-SP1 updates and patches to our system that have been made available for win-2k - haven't we? Why would "we"; I know you wouldn't, because you don't actually run Windows 98, and haven't for years. BS. More of your deliberately false statements. The date of my ending was posted within this group [end of 2009], discussed within this group, received your typical moronic responses, and included the reason for discontinuing usage "out here". You have posted that you stopped using Win9X in 2006/2007 and were using a pirated copy of XP [at that time, likely you are using a newer pirated copy OS]. You also posted this previously in various other forums/groups. You have an axe to grind over IE6 and it's applicability to Windows 98. One would think that because of that, that you would recommend win-98 users switch to Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead of continuing to run IE6. IE6 is 4 years out-of-date for win-98 users, but Firefox is only 1.5 years out of date. But you refuse to speak to that point. I'm a fraud huh, you are a "in the world's face liar" that hasn't even sense enough to realize that you CONSTANTLY show the world that you are not only a fraud, a liar, a troll, and a criminal, but that you are so stupid you think these posts disappear. I suppose there are those across the world that ARE susceptible to your frauds and lies, those with a brain aren't. Here's evidence of one of your more recent POS posts regarding this, and my response. I wrote this in response to your normal set of lies: Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 00:32:26 -0400 From: MEB Subject: Opera - Firefox 2.0.0.20 is filled with vulnerabilities References: In-Reply-To: On 05/01/2010 03:31 PM, 98 Guy wrote: MEB wrote: Firefox 2.0.0.20 is a perfectly capable browser for win-98. No it isn't, What a goofball statement. Of course it is. And from a security POV, it's more up-to-date than IE6 is. Yeah, so... its still filed vulnerabilities, everything starting with Firefox 3.0.5/6 hasn't been fixed in EOL Firefox 2 but likely affects it as well. Check the source: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/ During support for FF2 it generally received similar updates as in FF3 EXCEPT those specific to the changes creating FF3. ** Security Advisories for Firefox 2.0 http://www.mozilla.org/security/know...firefox20.html "Firefox 2.0 is no longer supported and the last update, Firefox 2.0.0.20, is affected by several vulnerabilities fixed in newer versions of the program. All users are urged to upgrade to the newest version of Firefox." It links to this page for vulnerabilities EOL/EOS: http://www.mozilla.org/security/know...firefox30.html It supposedly notes in those vulnerabilities when FF2 is NOT vulnerable or affected [after EOL] to that particular issue or the issue was fixed via the last two or three FF2 updates, HOWEVER, one must also READ the bug reports and comments as they may actually indicate otherwise, particularly against base files or engine. After EOL other XSS exploits were found and discussed in the developers forums affecting FF2.0.0.20; the PNG vulnerability affected all versions which included the library [FF2 does]; javascript vulnerabilities which affected FF2 [for the most part] can be checked against the engine/version in the developer discussions however most do not address 1.7 as that was FF2, also note that FF's java script support is actually a blend of three; and the list goes on; well beyond the supposed 4 or so "known" {reported} vulnerabilities purportedly left in FF2. No "authority" or bug tracking service or otherwise, bothered to list these as FF2 vulnerabilities/bugs as it was EOL and the "bugs" were not leveraged at/listed for the EOL FF2. The same thing happened with Win9X versions, other EOL OSs, or browser versions in EOL OSs, and other participating applications. But what do you know? A heck of a lot more than you do. Why? I make an effort to find out unlike you mouthing garbage you pulled out {of} the landfill... When was the last time you used win-98 as your default, daily-use OS? You are a coward - because you will not answer that question. And you will prove exactly that in your reply. Really, now you purport I'm a coward... that's funny. YOU, on the other hand, are a worthless, mindless, lying, stealing, openly moronic slug without ANY intelligence. *I* posted the EXACT time period [you even posted some of your moronic crap in that discussion] when I stopped using Win9X "out here" [I still use it] AND the reasons for that. And HAVE REPEATEDLY posted the applicable materials for this supposed FF2 crap of yours in this forum. Do your own research, the materials are ONCE AGAIN LINKED; oh I forgot you haven't the brain to do so and within two months or so you'll claim they were never placed [once cleared from the forums and archives]... YOU, on the other hand, haven't used Win9X since you bragged in this forum [and elsewhere] you were using a pirated copy of XP, around the end of 2006 or in 2007 wasn't it. INSTEAD, you forge identifiers to make it APPEAR you use Win9X. SOOOOOOO dorkidum, what other stupid stuff do you have to post here? -- MEB -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
MEB is a fraud - Who is * Guy and various other. They are all the same moron and liar
Sometimes I cannot /wait/ until 01 June!
MEB wrote: Hey 98 Guy, learn how to PROPERLY create new discussions... I suppose this is beyond your abilities since you constantly display you ARE a moron... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
MEB is a fraud - Who is * Guy and various other. They are all thesame moron and liar
"PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote: Sometimes I cannot /wait/ until 01 June! In that you must be very stupid because you can go to Forums NOWWWWW not until 01 June. You are here because you like to abuse and bully Microsoft customers. The sooner you get killed, the better it would be for Microsoft. hth -- THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. LDS5ZRA DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL LDS5ZRA OR HIS ASSOCIATES BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER INCLUDING DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF LDS5ZRA OR HIS ASSOCIATES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES SO THE FOREGOING LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY. Copyright LDS5ZRA 2010. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
MEB is a fraud
MEB wrote:
Hey 98 Guy, learn how to PROPERLY create new discussions... I know how to properly create new discussions. I changed the subject of this thread to something appropriate - which is to call you a fraud - which you are. I suppose this is beyond your abilities since you constantly display you ARE a moron... According to usenet conventions, I changed the subject line, and I added "Was: (etc)" to indicate the previous subject. Clearly that went right over your dim head. I know you wouldn't, because you don't actually run Windows 98, and haven't for years. BS. More of your deliberately false statements. The date of my ending was posted within this group [end of 2009], No. Tell us the date when you last stopped running Windows 98 as your default OS. Not just an OS that you run in VMware or equivalent. You have posted that you stopped using Win9X in 2006/2007 That is a complete load of horse sh.it. I never posted such a thing, because both at home and at $dayjob the only OS that is installed on both machines is Windows 98se. I have built approx. 450 computers over the past 15 years, and for the past 6 years I've built about 150 systems with XP. So I know how to install XP, I know how to update XP, I've installed a variety of apps, hacks and cracks on XP, learned all about WGA and how to get around it, etc. My experiences with XP begin and end with systems that are destined for production and final sale - not for daily use by me either at home or at work. and were using a pirated copy of XP [at that time, likely you are using a newer pirated copy OS]. You also posted this previously in various other forums/groups. I actually have never needed to pirate XP, because I have a binder full of XP product keys (System Builder 2002 version) that have never been published on the web, so they are not black-listed by Microshaft, and I can re-use them as much as I want. I also clone several production-ready drives on a regular basis. I'm a fraud huh, you are a "in the world's face liar" What have I lied about? You won't answer, because you're a blowhardt and a fraud. that hasn't even sense enough to realize that you CONSTANTLY show the world that you are not only a fraud, a liar, a troll, and a criminal, but that you are so stupid you think these posts disappear. You are the fraud who think's he's a lawyer. You won't back up your claim that I'm a liar. I'm not a troll (and neither are you) - because neither of us meet the definition of a usenet troll. Nobody can be a criminal until they're convicted by a court. Software acquisition or usage in contravention to corporate EULAs is not a criminal offence (it's a civil matter). And I know quite well that these posts will not disappear. I have never claimed that they would (again, another lie and mis-direction from you). I'm counting on future readers finding these posts so that they will understand what a fraud and a hoax you are. I suppose there are those across the world that ARE susceptible to your frauds and lies, those with a brain aren't. What fraud? What lies? If it is a fruad or a lie to claim that windows 98 is fully compatible with IE6 updates released for win-2K, then I dare you to have the balls to post such a statement on the msfn.org website, where such a belief is common, accepted knowledge. Here's evidence of one of your more recent POS posts regarding this, and my response. I wrote this in response to your normal set of lies: Firefox 2.0.0.20 is a perfectly capable browser for win-98. No it isn't, What a goofball statement. And from a security POV, it's more up-to-date than IE6 is. Yeah, so... its still filed vulnerabilities, A perfect example of how your logic is cracked. You will not explain why a broswer such as IE6 is *LESS* vulnerable than FF 2.20, given that IE6 was last updated in July 2006 (4 years ago) and FF 2.20 was last updated in Dec 2008 (1.5 years ago). How many vulnerabilities does IE6 circa July 2006 have, and how many vulnerabilities does FF 2.20 circa Dec 2008 have? Are you that foolish to think that you can foist such a bankrupt argument upon the readers of this group? I fully expect that your pseudo sock puppets: - Dan - Hemorrhoid - PCR will believe anything you say, but nobody else does. When was the last time you used win-98 as your default, daily-use OS? You are a coward - because you will not answer that question. And you will prove exactly that in your reply. Really, now you purport I'm a coward... that's funny. Thank you for proving it. The reader will note that as predicted, MEB did not answer the simple question put to him. *I* posted the EXACT time period [you even posted some of your moronic crap in that discussion] when I stopped using Win9X "out here" It would have taken fewer keystrokes to simply state the approximate date that you stopped using windows 98 as your default or main OS. Instead you answered the question like you answer practically all questions - by saying that you've already answered the question. [I still use it] As your main, default, general-use OS? You didn't make your last post here using it. You were using Suse linux. Do your own research, the materials are ONCE AGAIN LINKED; Again, with your "linked" evidence. Link this MEB - (I'm giving you the finger) YOU, on the other hand, haven't used Win9X since you bragged in this forum [and elsewhere] you were using a pirated copy of XP, around the end of 2006 or in 2007 wasn't it. Look at the headers of this post - and EVERY post I've made in this newsgroup for the past 5 years. You will see which OS I'm using. I wouldn't run XP as my main, personal, default OS if you paid me. INSTEAD, you forge identifiers to make it APPEAR you use Win9X. That's a sore point with you - isin't it? When I continue to use win-98, when I say which motherboards have the drivers to fully run win-98, when my headers continue to indicate that I'm running windows 98. And when I point out to others here that you don't run windows 98, and that you haven't used windows 98 as your main operating system for years. That diminishes you in the eyes of others here, doesn't it? That takes away from your supposed authority to know exactly what's going on with windows 98 in the year 2010, doesn't it? When I continue to ask why are you here. Why do you take an interest in an OS that you don't use any more, that you have no current expertise in, where you don't know the current best-practices, options, enhancements. And you don't answer. And you make statements like "this will end my obligation to windows 98". What sort of bombast is that? Who exactly obligated you? SOOOOOOO dorkidum, what other stupid stuff do you have to post here? Other than infantile name calling? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
MEB is a fraud - Who is * Guy and various other. They are allthe same moron and liar
On 05/14/2010 07:04 PM, PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
Sometimes I cannot /wait/ until 01 June! MEB wrote: Hey 98 Guy, learn how to PROPERLY create new discussions... I suppose this is beyond your abilities since you constantly display you ARE a moron... I'm sure, at least this type of activity will soon cease to exist on Microsoft, and I'll be gone shortly [loud cheers from all sides and points]. Robear, we may have disagreed at times on things - that's part of life, but, it was a "real" experience. Good luck in wherever life takes you [and watch out for the bad wine, but keep those "pipes" properly oiled], and good health [we're getting old, much as we hate to admit it]. Uh, excuse me, seems dorkidum has posted in the wrong discussion again.. -- MEB |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
MEB is a fraud - Who is * Guy and various other. They are all the same moron and liar
"LDS5ZRA" wrote in message .. . "PA Bear [MS MVP]" wrote: Sometimes I cannot /wait/ until 01 June! In that you must be very stupid snip Rich, from someone with such a stupid sig ? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
MEB is a fraud - Who is * Guy and various other. They are allthe same moron and liar
On 05/14/2010 01:04 PM, MEB wrote:
Hey 98 Guy, learn how to PROPERLY create new discussions... I suppose this is beyond your abilities since you constantly display you ARE a moron... On 05/14/2010 08:59 AM, 98 Guy wrote: MEB wrote: Naturally we 98 users have been applying the IE6-SP1 updates and patches to our system that have been made available for win-2k - haven't we? Why would "we"; I know you wouldn't, because you don't actually run Windows 98, and haven't for years. BS. More of your deliberately false statements. The date of my ending was posted within this group [end of 2009], discussed within this group, received your typical moronic responses, and included the reason for discontinuing usage "out here". You have posted that you stopped using Win9X in 2006/2007 and were using a pirated copy of XP [at that time, likely you are using a newer pirated copy OS]. You also posted this previously in various other forums/groups. You have an axe to grind over IE6 and it's applicability to Windows 98. One would think that because of that, that you would recommend win-98 users switch to Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead of continuing to run IE6. IE6 is 4 years out-of-date for win-98 users, but Firefox is only 1.5 years out of date. But you refuse to speak to that point. I'm a fraud huh, you are a "in the world's face liar" that hasn't even sense enough to realize that you CONSTANTLY show the world that you are not only a fraud, a liar, a troll, and a criminal, but that you are so stupid you think these posts disappear. I suppose there are those across the world that ARE susceptible to your frauds and lies, those with a brain aren't. Here's evidence of one of your more recent POS posts regarding this, and my response. I wrote this in response to your normal set of lies: Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 00:32:26 -0400 From: MEB Subject: Opera - Firefox 2.0.0.20 is filled with vulnerabilities References: In-Reply-To: On 05/01/2010 03:31 PM, 98 Guy wrote: MEB wrote: Firefox 2.0.0.20 is a perfectly capable browser for win-98. No it isn't, What a goofball statement. Of course it is. And from a security POV, it's more up-to-date than IE6 is. Yeah, so... its still filed vulnerabilities, everything starting with Firefox 3.0.5/6 hasn't been fixed in EOL Firefox 2 but likely affects it as well. Check the source: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/ During support for FF2 it generally received similar updates as in FF3 EXCEPT those specific to the changes creating FF3. ** Security Advisories for Firefox 2.0 http://www.mozilla.org/security/know...firefox20.html "Firefox 2.0 is no longer supported and the last update, Firefox 2.0.0.20, is affected by several vulnerabilities fixed in newer versions of the program. All users are urged to upgrade to the newest version of Firefox." It links to this page for vulnerabilities EOL/EOS: http://www.mozilla.org/security/know...firefox30.html It supposedly notes in those vulnerabilities when FF2 is NOT vulnerable or affected [after EOL] to that particular issue or the issue was fixed via the last two or three FF2 updates, HOWEVER, one must also READ the bug reports and comments as they may actually indicate otherwise, particularly against base files or engine. After EOL other XSS exploits were found and discussed in the developers forums affecting FF2.0.0.20; the PNG vulnerability affected all versions which included the library [FF2 does]; javascript vulnerabilities which affected FF2 [for the most part] can be checked against the engine/version in the developer discussions however most do not address 1.7 as that was FF2, also note that FF's java script support is actually a blend of three; and the list goes on; well beyond the supposed 4 or so "known" {reported} vulnerabilities purportedly left in FF2. No "authority" or bug tracking service or otherwise, bothered to list these as FF2 vulnerabilities/bugs as it was EOL and the "bugs" were not leveraged at/listed for the EOL FF2. The same thing happened with Win9X versions, other EOL OSs, or browser versions in EOL OSs, and other participating applications. But what do you know? A heck of a lot more than you do. Why? I make an effort to find out unlike you mouthing garbage you pulled out {of} the landfill... When was the last time you used win-98 as your default, daily-use OS? You are a coward - because you will not answer that question. And you will prove exactly that in your reply. Really, now you purport I'm a coward... that's funny. YOU, on the other hand, are a worthless, mindless, lying, stealing, openly moronic slug without ANY intelligence. *I* posted the EXACT time period [you even posted some of your moronic crap in that discussion] when I stopped using Win9X "out here" [I still use it] AND the reasons for that. And HAVE REPEATEDLY posted the applicable materials for this supposed FF2 crap of yours in this forum. Do your own research, the materials are ONCE AGAIN LINKED; oh I forgot you haven't the brain to do so and within two months or so you'll claim they were never placed [once cleared from the forums and archives]... YOU, on the other hand, haven't used Win9X since you bragged in this forum [and elsewhere] you were using a pirated copy of XP, around the end of 2006 or in 2007 wasn't it. INSTEAD, you forge identifiers to make it APPEAR you use Win9X. SOOOOOOO dorkidum, what other stupid stuff do you have to post here? -- MEB Hmm, did some idiot attempt to respond? No, guess not, I see no response from 98 Guy in this discussion... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
MEB is a fraud - Who is * Guy and various other. They are all thesame moron and liar
Sunny wrote: Rich, from someone with such a stupid sig ? If you were smart enough then you would have not read it and allowed people to assume your stupidity rather than reading it and confirming your own stupidity. hth -- THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. LDS5ZRA DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT SHALL LDS5ZRA OR HIS ASSOCIATES BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER INCLUDING DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF LDS5ZRA OR HIS ASSOCIATES HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME STATES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES SO THE FOREGOING LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY. Copyright LDS5ZRA 2010. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
MEB is a fraud - Who is * Guy and various other. They are allthesame moron and liar
MEB wrote:
Hmm, did some idiot attempt to respond? No, guess not, I see no response from 98 Guy in this discussion... Respond to this, you coward: MEB wrote: Hey 98 Guy, learn how to PROPERLY create new discussions... I know how to properly create new discussions. I changed the subject of this thread to something appropriate - which is to call you a fraud - which you are. I suppose this is beyond your abilities since you constantly display you ARE a moron... According to usenet conventions, I changed the subject line, and I added "Was: (etc)" to indicate the previous subject. Clearly that went right over your dim head. I know you wouldn't, because you don't actually run Windows 98, and haven't for years. BS. More of your deliberately false statements. The date of my ending was posted within this group [end of 2009], No. Tell us the date when you last stopped running Windows 98 as your default OS. Not just an OS that you run in VMware or equivalent. You have posted that you stopped using Win9X in 2006/2007 That is a complete load of horse sh.it. I never posted such a thing, because both at home and at $dayjob the only OS that is installed on both machines is Windows 98se. I have built approx. 450 computers over the past 15 years, and for the past 6 years I've built about 150 systems with XP. So I know how to install XP, I know how to update XP, I've installed a variety of apps, hacks and cracks on XP, learned all about WGA and how to get around it, etc. My experiences with XP begin and end with systems that are destined for production and final sale - not for daily use by me either at home or at work. and were using a pirated copy of XP [at that time, likely you are using a newer pirated copy OS]. You also posted this previously in various other forums/groups. I actually have never needed to pirate XP, because I have a binder full of XP product keys (System Builder 2002 version) that have never been published on the web, so they are not black-listed by Microshaft, and I can re-use them as much as I want. I also clone several production-ready drives on a regular basis. I'm a fraud huh, you are a "in the world's face liar" What have I lied about? You won't answer, because you're a blowhardt and a fraud. that hasn't even sense enough to realize that you CONSTANTLY show the world that you are not only a fraud, a liar, a troll, and a criminal, but that you are so stupid you think these posts disappear. You are the fraud who think's he's a lawyer. You won't back up your claim that I'm a liar. I'm not a troll (and neither are you) - because neither of us meet the definition of a usenet troll. Nobody can be a criminal until they're convicted by a court. Software acquisition or usage in contravention to corporate EULAs is not a criminal offence (it's a civil matter). And I know quite well that these posts will not disappear. I have never claimed that they would (again, another lie and mis-direction from you). I'm counting on future readers finding these posts so that they will understand what a fraud and a hoax you are. I suppose there are those across the world that ARE susceptible to your frauds and lies, those with a brain aren't. What fraud? What lies? If it is a fruad or a lie to claim that windows 98 is fully compatible with IE6 updates released for win-2K, then I dare you to have the balls to post such a statement on the msfn.org website, where such a belief is common, accepted knowledge. Here's evidence of one of your more recent POS posts regarding this, and my response. I wrote this in response to your normal set of lies: Firefox 2.0.0.20 is a perfectly capable browser for win-98. No it isn't, What a goofball statement. And from a security POV, it's more up-to-date than IE6 is. Yeah, so... its still filed vulnerabilities, A perfect example of how your logic is cracked. You will not explain why a broswer such as IE6 is *LESS* vulnerable than FF 2.20, given that IE6 was last updated in July 2006 (4 years ago) and FF 2.20 was last updated in Dec 2008 (1.5 years ago). How many vulnerabilities does IE6 circa July 2006 have, and how many vulnerabilities does FF 2.20 circa Dec 2008 have? Are you that foolish to think that you can foist such a bankrupt argument upon the readers of this group? I fully expect that your pseudo sock puppets: - Dan - Hemorrhoid - PCR will believe anything you say, but nobody else does. When was the last time you used win-98 as your default, daily-use OS? You are a coward - because you will not answer that question. And you will prove exactly that in your reply. Really, now you purport I'm a coward... that's funny. Thank you for proving it. The reader will note that as predicted, MEB did not answer the simple question put to him. *I* posted the EXACT time period [you even posted some of your moronic crap in that discussion] when I stopped using Win9X "out here" It would have taken fewer keystrokes to simply state the approximate date that you stopped using windows 98 as your default or main OS. Instead you answered the question like you answer practically all questions - by saying that you've already answered the question. [I still use it] As your main, default, general-use OS? You didn't make your last post here using it. You were using Suse linux. Do your own research, the materials are ONCE AGAIN LINKED; Again, with your "linked" evidence. Link this MEB - (I'm giving you the finger) YOU, on the other hand, haven't used Win9X since you bragged in this forum [and elsewhere] you were using a pirated copy of XP, around the end of 2006 or in 2007 wasn't it. Look at the headers of this post - and EVERY post I've made in this newsgroup for the past 5 years. You will see which OS I'm using. I wouldn't run XP as my main, personal, default OS if you paid me. INSTEAD, you forge identifiers to make it APPEAR you use Win9X. That's a sore point with you - isin't it? When I continue to use win-98, when I say which motherboards have the drivers to fully run win-98, when my headers continue to indicate that I'm running windows 98. And when I point out to others here that you don't run windows 98, and that you haven't used windows 98 as your main operating system for years. That diminishes you in the eyes of others here, doesn't it? That takes away from your supposed authority to know exactly what's going on with windows 98 in the year 2010, doesn't it? When I continue to ask why are you here. Why do you take an interest in an OS that you don't use any more, that you have no current expertise in, where you don't know the current best-practices, options, enhancements. And you don't answer. And you make statements like "this will end my obligation to windows 98". What sort of bombast is that? Who exactly obligated you? SOOOOOOO dorkidum, what other stupid stuff do you have to post here? Other than infantile name calling? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
MEB is a fraud - Who is * Guy and various other. They are allthesame moron and liar
On 05/14/2010 09:34 PM, 98 Guy wrote:
MEB wrote: Hmm, did some idiot attempt to respond? No, guess not, I see no response from 98 Guy in this discussion... Respond to this, you coward: Spoken by someone who HIDES behind a false nym, uses an anonymous news posting host, and has yet to show that the entity knows squat about ANYTHING [or at least wasn't stolen from someone else's postings]. Er, unless 98 Guy considered THAT a proper response... crawl away, babyboo, your mamma's calling you... shooo,,, hey lady, change that diaper, it smells awful!!!!! -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MEB is a fraud | PCR | General | 0 | May 17th 10 11:58 PM |
MEB is a fraud. | 98 Guy | General | 0 | May 15th 10 05:33 AM |