Phishing warnings

[~BD~]

On 08/04/2011 11:23, FromTheRafters wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 06:46:26 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Hey Numnuts Pranoia a.k.a. BD
>>>
>>> Lizamoon is scareware. Period. You are now the salesman of the year for
>>> FUD spreading
>>>
>>> BTW: It is an old issue (Lizamoon) dates back to Sept 2010 where it did
>>> nothing except scare people to cause Fraudsmith.
>>>
>>>
>>> One of many sites that give info on your FUD
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LizaMoon
>>>
>>>
>> Strange that you now consider Wikipedia as an appropriate site to verify
>> facts. Have you initiated changes yet to included information about
>> Aumha on Jim's info page?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Eshelman
>>
>> Oh, btw ......
>>
>> Out of interest, what do you see here?
>>
>> http://www.rynekspa.pl/hsbos/index.php
>
> ???
>
> You got a toothache?


No!

FUD!

Google Chrome reported .....

http://i54.tinypic.com/2af0592.jpg

No warning for you then?

Safari and Firefox also issued a similar warning.

[FromTheRafters]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:16:15 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> On 08/04/2011 11:23, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 06:46:26 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>>> Hey Numnuts Pranoia a.k.a. BD
>>>>
>>>> Lizamoon is scareware. Period. You are now the salesman of the year
>>>> for FUD spreading
>>>>
>>>> BTW: It is an old issue (Lizamoon) dates back to Sept 2010 where it
>>>> did nothing except scare people to cause Fraudsmith.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One of many sites that give info on your FUD
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LizaMoon
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Strange that you now consider Wikipedia as an appropriate site to
>>> verify facts. Have you initiated changes yet to included information
>>> about Aumha on Jim's info page?
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Eshelman
>>>
>>> Oh, btw ......
>>>
>>> Out of interest, what do you see here?
>>>
>>> http://www.rynekspa.pl/hsbos/index.php
>>
>> ???
>>
>> You got a toothache?
>
>
> No!
>
> FUD!
>
> Google Chrome reported .....
>
> http://i54.tinypic.com/2af0592.jpg
>
> No warning for you then?

Well, if you had told me what results you were expecting, I could have
approached it differently.

> Safari and Firefox also issued a similar warning.

This system doesn't *do* warnings. )

[~BD~]

On 08/04/2011 15:05, FromTheRafters wrote:
[....]
>> Google Chrome reported .....
>>
>> http://i54.tinypic.com/2af0592.jpg
>>
>> No warning for you then?
>
> Well, if you had told me what results you were expecting, I could have
> approached it differently.
>
>> Safari and Firefox also issued a similar warning.
>
> This system doesn't *do* warnings. )
>

Will you share details of such system?

Would not such warnings not be helpful in alerting you (and others) to
possible danger?

Maybe *you* are able to beat the odds without help! Somehow!

[Aardvark]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:34:10 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> Would not such warnings not be helpful in alerting you (and others) to
> possible danger?

I find them a pain in the ass. Time to turn those sto0pid warnings off
here, methinks.



--
“Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and socialism
without freedom is slavery and brutality.” -Mikhail Bakunin

[Aardvark]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:34:10 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> Would not such warnings not be helpful in alerting you (and others) to
> possible danger?

I find them a pain in the ass. Time to turn those sto0pid warnings off
here, methinks.



--
“Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and socialism
without freedom is slavery and brutality.” -Mikhail Bakunin

[FromTheRafters]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:34:10 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> On 08/04/2011 15:05, FromTheRafters wrote: [....]
>>> Google Chrome reported .....
>>>
>>> http://i54.tinypic.com/2af0592.jpg
>>>
>>> No warning for you then?
>>
>> Well, if you had told me what results you were expecting, I could have
>> approached it differently.
>>
>>> Safari and Firefox also issued a similar warning.
>>
>> This system doesn't *do* warnings. )
>>
>>
> Will you share details of such system?

Lucid Puppy 5.1.1

> Would not such warnings not be helpful in alerting you (and others) to
> possible danger?

I wouldn't likely be typing my personal information into any webforms, so
phishing is not something I am concerned about.

> Maybe *you* are able to beat the odds without help! Somehow!

There is nothing on this system that is important enough for me to worry
about it being lost or stolen. The only worry is how my processing power
being stolen might affect others, but there is little chance anything
will do so and even less that it could become persistent - and this
system spends much more time being off than on.

[~BD~]

On 08/04/2011 16:15, FromTheRafters wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:34:10 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/2011 15:05, FromTheRafters wrote: [....]
>>>> Google Chrome reported .....
>>>>
>>>> http://i54.tinypic.com/2af0592.jpg
>>>>
>>>> No warning for you then?
>>>
>>> Well, if you had told me what results you were expecting, I could have
>>> approached it differently.
>>>
>>>> Safari and Firefox also issued a similar warning.
>>>
>>> This system doesn't *do* warnings. )
>>>
>>>
>> Will you share details of such system?
>
> Lucid Puppy 5.1.1
>
>> Would not such warnings not be helpful in alerting you (and others) to
>> possible danger?
>
> I wouldn't likely be typing my personal information into any webforms, so
> phishing is not something I am concerned about.
>
>> Maybe *you* are able to beat the odds without help! Somehow!
>
> There is nothing on this system that is important enough for me to worry
> about it being lost or stolen. The only worry is how my processing power
> being stolen might affect others, but there is little chance anything
> will do so and even less that it could become persistent - and this
> system spends much more time being off than on.
>

All noted. Thanks FTR.

[~BD~]

On 08/04/2011 16:45, FromTheRafters wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:34:10 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Would not such warnings not be helpful in alerting you (and others) to
>> possible danger?
>
> No.
>
> Err ... and not no (i.e., yes) they would not be not helpful in alerting
> others, but for 'and me' they would indeed be not helpful but rather an
> annoyance.
>
> So, no - because of the implied 'and me' and possibly not no otherwise.
>

That took a bit of deliberation, did it not? ;-)

I shouldn't not concentrate .... mix computing with decorating!

[FromTheRafters]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:48:54 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

> On 08/04/2011 16:45, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:34:10 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Would not such warnings not be helpful in alerting you (and others) to
>>> possible danger?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Err ... and not no (i.e., yes) they would not be not helpful in
>> alerting others, but for 'and me' they would indeed be not helpful but
>> rather an annoyance.
>>
>> So, no - because of the implied 'and me' and possibly not no otherwise.
>>
>>
> That took a bit of deliberation, did it not? ;-)

Yes, it certainly did not not take a bit of doing.

> I shouldn't not concentrate .... mix computing with decorating!

)