Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> ~BD~ wrote:
>>>> BTS - I have read everything anyone and everyone has thrown in front
>>>> of me telling me that 'he/she' is one of life's bad guys. What I
>>>> have read may, or may not, be true.
>>>
>>> Except for what Butts himself says, it's all true. He's male, he's a
>>> thief, and a liar.
>>
>> You say it is all true. Maybe it is.
>
> One day, you will fully understand.
>
>>>> Whilst I may have missed it, I didn't see anything on 'his/her' web
>>>> site which stated that the picture of a blonde woman was a true
>>>> representation of the MVP in question. Maybe it's there simply to
>>>> cheer up an otherwise rather dull page!
>>>
>>> You don't read enough.
>>
>> I really don't want to. If the 'tools' published actually work and do
>> no harm to anyone's machine, does it *really* matter from whence the
>> source was obtained?
>
> You still miss the point. Would you knowingly purchase and read a novel
> by "Ferdinand Dinglethorpe" if you knew it was actually written by
> Stephen King? If you knew that Dinglethorpe was known to be guilty of
> breaking and flaunting copyright law?

No

>
> Would you knowingly buy and use an operating system called "Butts
> Windows" if you knew it was actually Microsoft Windows with all the
> logos changed?

No

>
> Is adding the domain names of reputable anti-malware web sites to his
> pirated copy of the MPVS hosts file harmful?

That I cannot answer.

>
>>>> What you *think* you know from your Internet research may be totally
>>>> incorrect - there really is no way of *knowing* the truth on line.
>>>
>>> Once again, having caught him myself redhanded copying the works of
>>> others -- and forgetting to remove *their* signatures from the
>>> scripts -- I know the truth. It isn't what Butts says.
>>
>> I'm inclined to believe you - but cannot be 100% certain of that.
>>
>>> I have copies of his picture as well. He is *not* a young blonde
>>> woman.
>>
>> You were challenged to post those pictures. You have failed to do so.
>
> Asked and answered.

Not satisfactorily though. As you chose *not* to post what you say are
genuine pictures, readers are left in doubt as to whether you really
have same. You would also, of course, have had to divulge exactly how
you acquired them.

>
>>>> Just remember, it was *you* who refused to have email contact with
>>>> me, though of what you were afraid I have absolutely no idea. Mr
>>>> Lipman will agree that email is a somewhat 'safer' medium than
>>>> Usenet!
>>>
>>> I did not email you because I don't want my email address in your
>>> address book, where it would be subject to the same **** you pull
>>> here in Usenet .. posting messages from one group to another, and
>>> probably forwarding it around to total strangers.
>>
>> You could have used any throw-away email address to contact me, so I
>> cannot accept that as a reason.
>
> Yes, you should accept it. I don't want my email to show up in a post in
> scorched-earth a few hours later, complete with headers. And don't even
> try to say you don't do stuff like that.

If it's a throw away address for a once only communication, how on earth
could that bother you in any way. It seems that you may be afraid that
something untoward about you might be discovered.

>
>> Whilst folk in these groups seem quite sure that 'thingy' is a nasty
>> piece of work (and I accept that he may well be) I do not believe
>> he/she is involved in Cybercrime in any way. /Those/ are the 'bad
>> guys' in which I am interested.
>
> Blatant violation of copyright law should be enough.
>

If you are quite certain of your facts then I believe you have a public
*duty* - maybe in conjunction with all those who are in agreement with
you - to bring about a prosecution of the offending individual.

I cannot believe that help in not available to you in Obama's USA.

"Put your money where your mouth is" comes to mind.

As they say in the navy "Make it so!"

--
Dave