Dustin wrote:
> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
> news:itcb9g$4mp$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Dustin wrote:
>>> ~BD~<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in
>>> news:it9d61$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>
>
> Well, just where do you suppose I learned most of it, David? I wasn't
> always a nice guy...

<shock> ;-)

>> 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
>
> Sure they aren't...Excuse me if I don't believe you, ok?

You should believe me. I told you I tell the truth and *am* being
straight-forward.

>> I like Graham too - but he's certainly *not* "one of my lackies"!
>
> Why the inuendo attack participation towards malwarebytes then? Nobody in
> their right mind developing an antimalware product would risk doing
> something so stupid as to have it do something and not let the user know
> about it. You're a POS for even suggesting that.
>
>>> Did you enjoy his schooling?
>>
>> I did find what you said interesting.
>
> I'll bet you did. I told you, I don't ****ing bull**** and I don't play
> games.

You should smile more, Dustin! :-)

>> 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>)
>
> I have no problem with pot, David. You've got me ****ed up with somebody
> else. I've smoked it myself.

You should smile more, Dustin! :-)

>> *Why* did you do so?
>
> Research purposes. I like reverse engineering software. I was examining
> it's registration system. I cracked it for my own personal use in full
> registered mode so I could tinker with it.
>
>> *Why* did you? Were you suspicious about something?
>
> See above.
>
>>>> Have you ever tested SuperAntispyware in a similar manner?
>>>
>>> Again, YES I have.
>>
>> What made you decide to do so, Dustin?
>
> I wanted all the features for free and didn't wanna do what everybody
> else does, just download a keygen. I'm a curious person...
>
> I have since acquired legitimate licenses and the executables are not
> patched. [g]

Thank you. Maybe someone else reading here also has the skill to
forensically examine a machine in the same way. They may even get
different results!

>>> 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?
>
> Before I had decent cash flow...

A while back then?
>
>> Might they have changed since you did your research?<rhetorical>
>
> Nope.

That's a guess - it *must* 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.
>
> It's self explanatory. You're paranoid as I said from the getgo because
> you haven't got a clue how that box in front of you works inside, and
> sadly, I don't think you ever will. It's mystical to you.

I admit that I know more about cars/engines than I do about computers!

I love things which work 'automagically', btw! :-)

Others can, and do, help me with the technicalities of computers.

D.