Malwarebytes

[G. Morgan]

Dustin wrote:


>While spector does change and morph, not ALL of the executable does so.
>I don't know why you want to get cheeky with me, but you're going to be
>sorry you did...Evidently you don't write code or study it, so here's a
>schooling for you.

I don't know why you thought I was being "cheeky", I certainly didn't
mean anything smart-ass. I already told you (I thought) I don't write
code.

[ lesson cut, pasted, and saved as .txt local]

>Okay.. That covers the majority of getting dirty. I'm leaving a few
>things out, but I think you get the point now... Eh?

Yes, you have given me a lot to go on there. I do appriciate it, there
are some real gems in there.

[Dustin]

G. Morgan <G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in
news:jpqfv65ck9spb8bttjo8fms4c2nkj34ipu@Osama-is-dead.net:

> I don't know why you thought I was being "cheeky", I certainly
> didn't mean anything smart-ass. I already told you (I thought) I
> don't write code.

I didn't remember you mentioning that.. Sorry. It just seemed cheeky to
me.


--
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain
Your cup runneth over again

[~BD~]

Dustin wrote:
> G. Morgan<G_Morgan@easy.com> wrote in
> news:jpqfv65ck9spb8bttjo8fms4c2nkj34ipu@Osama-is-dead.net:
>
>> I don't know why you thought I was being "cheeky", I certainly
>> didn't mean anything smart-ass. I already told you (I thought) I
>> don't write code.
>
> I didn't remember you mentioning that.. Sorry. It just seemed cheeky to
> me.
>
>

Dustin - you obviously know your stuff. No one is challenging you on that.

Have you *ever*, though, loaded MBAM onto a fresh/clean computer and
then run the programme? (the result should of course be that nothing
untoward would have been found).

Have you then uninstalled MBAM and then *forensically examined* the
machine to determine if MBAM has, possibly, surrupticially installed
it's very own malware - maybe a rootkit?

Have you ever tested SuperAntispyware in a similar manner?

If you have *not* done so ..... how can you be *certain* that nothing
has been 'left behind'?

Nobody has so far claimed that this exercise *has* been carried out. It
appears that everyone simply assumes all is above board, so to speak. It
may not be!

D.

[Bullwinkle.]

Get a job leech.


"Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:it86sg$mju$1@dont-email.me...


Bullwinkle. wrote:
> It will help if you give honest answers
>
> Here is a straight forward question for you:
>
> Are you the father of your daughters recent baby?
>
> Your word is no good you will need to provide proof, either way.
>
> Remembering there is a 50-50 chance she is not your daughter.
>
> So you may be ok if you are the dad of the baby.

Hey Bulltinkle, you are even a bigger neurotic a-hole here than you are in
the 24hr ng.
Ask your mental dr for help, or, if you don't have one yet, GET ONE, ASAP!!!
Buffalo

[Dustin]

~BD~ <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
news:it9d61$qn5$1@dont-email.me:

> Dustin - you obviously know your stuff. No one is challenging you on
> that.

Yes, arsehole, I do. I told you I did in the beginning. In fact, I've
told you how I operate. I want you to know what I'm holding so that
when you do do something stupid, or get somebody else too, they can't
say they weren't warned that I'd pull and use the double barrel and cut
them in half. I play fair in that regard. You aren't challenging me on
it now, and Graham I doubt will be again anytime soon. I liked him,
considered him a techie fellow. Now, I consider him one of your lackies
so won't be talking to him anymore. Did you enjoy his schooling? That
was your fault, David. I know you prodded him into challenging me here,
I ****ing know you did. You cost me a potentially useful associate down
the road.

> Have you *ever*, though, loaded MBAM onto a fresh/clean computer and
> then run the programme? (the result should of course be that nothing
> untoward would have been found).

Of course I have.

> Have you then uninstalled MBAM and then *forensically examined* the
> machine to determine if MBAM has, possibly, surrupticially installed
> it's very own malware - maybe a rootkit?

Yes, I have.

> Have you ever tested SuperAntispyware in a similar manner?

Again, YES I have.

> If you have *not* done so ..... how can you be *certain* that
> nothing has been 'left behind'?

Because I've ****ing done those things.

> Nobody has so far claimed that this exercise *has* been carried out.
> It appears that everyone simply assumes all is above board, so to
> speak. It may not be!

I just wanted to see how far this would have to go before I actually
said something about it. Some people just don't learn.


--
Why drink the water from my hand?
Contagious as you think I am
Just tilt my sun towards your domain
Your cup runneth over again

[G. Morgan]

Dustin wrote:

>You aren't challenging me on
>it now, and Graham I doubt will be again anytime soon. I liked him,
>considered him a techie fellow. Now, I consider him one of your lackies
>so won't be talking to him anymore. Did you enjoy his schooling? That
>was your fault, David. I know you prodded him into challenging me here,
>I ****ing know you did. You cost me a potentially useful associate down
>the road.


If you think David prodded me into asking you anything you're mistaken.

[~BD~]

Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
> news:it9d61$qn5$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Dustin - you obviously know your stuff. No one is challenging you on
>> that.
>
> Yes, I do. I told you I did in the beginning. In fact, I've
> told you how I operate. I want you to know what I'm holding so that
> when you do do something stupid, or get somebody else to, they can't
> say they weren't warned that I'd pull and use the double barrel and cut
> them in half. I play fair in that regard. You aren't challenging me on
> it now, and Graham I doubt will be again any time soon.

Black hats know their stuff too, Dustin. <grin>

However, my comments are *not* intended to be a wind-up in any way.
You've asked me to be straight-forward and ask you questions directly
with no double-meaning or innuendo, so the following are just that -
direct questions, answers to which may be of interest to others reading
here, not just me.

> I liked him,
> considered him a techie fellow. Now, I consider him one of your lackies
> so won't be talking to him any more.

I like Graham too - but he's certainly *not* "one of my lackies"!

> Did you enjoy his schooling?

I did find what you said interesting.

> That was your fault, David. I know you prodded him into challenging me here,
> I know you did. You cost me a potentially useful associate down
> the road.

You are wrong about that. I urge you to reconsider cutting Graham from
your group of associates - he's a good man (even though he smokes pot! <s>)

>> Have you *ever*, though, loaded MBAM onto a fresh/clean computer and
>> then run the programme? (the result should of course be that nothing
>> untoward would have been found).
>
> Of course I have.

*Why* did you do so?

>> Have you then uninstalled MBAM and then *forensically examined* the
>> machine to determine if MBAM has, possibly, surrupticially installed
>> it's very own malware - maybe a rootkit?
>
> Yes, I have.

*Why* did you? Were you suspicious about something?

>> Have you ever tested SuperAntispyware in a similar manner?
>
> Again, YES I have.

What made you decide to do so, Dustin?

>> If you have *not* done so ..... how can you be *certain* that
>> nothing has been 'left behind'?
>
> Because I've done those things.

An explanation of your reasons for so doing will be appreciated.
Out of interest, *when* did you look so closely at these products?

Might they have changed since you did your research? <rhetorical>

>> Nobody has so far claimed that this exercise *has* been carried out.
>> It appears that everyone simply assumes all is above board, so to
>> speak. It may not be!
>
> I just wanted to see how far this would have to go before I actually
> said something about it. Some people just don't learn.

Please clarify what you mean by this, Dustin. I'm trying *not* to read
between the lines! TIA.

D.

[G. Morgan]

~BD~ wrote:

>You are wrong about that. I urge you to reconsider cutting Graham from
>your group of associates - he's a good man

Don't bother. This isn't the first time he's insinuated that. I don't
think I want to be associated with such a hothead, and one that makes
erroneous assumptions.

[Bullwinkle.]

LMAO!

Stooge is a better description.

You two exchange almost as many emails
as you and the fat ass from OK.


"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:itcb9g$4mp$1@dont-email.me...

I like Graham too - but he's certainly *not* "one of my lackies"!

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

~BD~ wrote:

> However, my comments are *not* intended to be a wind-up in any way.

<cough>Bull****</cough>

> You've asked me to be straight-forward and ask you questions directly
> with no double-meaning or innuendo, so the following are just that -
> direct questions, answers to which may be of interest to others
> reading here, not just me.

You *constantly* speak in double-meaning and innuendo. Slimy innuendo.
Your claim that you always speak the truth is a lie itself.

--
-bts
-May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your narrowboat
-and sink it in the deepest canal in all of England