Is CutePDF Spyware?

[mto]

"Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in message
news:egtkhvo6qvju118qibpfi19fr8e72qkkha@news.rcn.c om...
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:42:32 -0000, in > CuteFTP is spyware, and has been
for ages -- this is such common knowledge,
> I didn't think there was anyone left who *didn't* know it.

On any given day there are hundreds of thousands of new computer users who
have never heard of spyware, have no clue where the any key is, do not
understand the term reboot and wouldn't know ftp if it bit them on the nose,
to say nothing of the name of a specific ftp program.

Your supercilious attitude towards those that you misguidely imagine do not
know as much as you misguidely imagine yourself to know does the entire
Internet community a HUGE disservice and is entirely counterproductive to
any and all efforts to deal with the security/spyware/privacy issues that
every member of the community - both old and new, expert and raw newbie -
faces.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:13:00 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "mto"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> On any given day there are hundreds of thousands of new computer users
> who have never heard of spyware, have no clue where the any key is, do
> not understand the term reboot and wouldn't know ftp if it bit them on
> the nose, to say nothing of the name of a specific ftp program.
>
[snip]

Quite true. But very few of them have the unmitigated effrontery to then
turn around and hold themselves out as some sort of expert, especially to
the extent of charging *real* "poor unsuspecting newbies" money (cf.
Message-ID: <vh3064j0c5to21@corp.supernews.com>) for their ill-considered
and woefully misguided "advice".

> Your supercilious attitude towards those that you misguidely imagine do
> not know as much as you misguidely imagine yourself to know ...
[snip]

Ya' know... If you like a four-syllable word enough to (mis-)use it twice
in the same run-on sentence, it might be useful for you to learn how to
spell it. Here, let me help: "misguidedly".

As for my so-called "supercilious attitude"... My contempt is reserved for
arrogant idiots such as yourself, not genuine newbies (whom I make every
effort to supply information to in a non-judgemental manner). After all,
ignorance is curable. Stupidity isn't.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:34:27 +0100, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Paul
<paul@streetka.biz> wrote:
>
[snip]

> Why do you use a non-compliant sig?

I don't.

> Paul B The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new
> respectability to uninformed opinion. - John Lawton

Now that *is* ironic.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Paul]

In article <r29qhvcq02kkrgudkf715ecgm0dgn7s1dp@news.rcn.com >, Jay T.
Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> writes
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:34:27 +0100, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Paul
><paul@streetka.biz> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
>
> > Why do you use a non-compliant sig?
>
>I don't.
>
> > Paul B The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new
> > respectability to uninformed opinion. - John Lawton
>
>Now that *is* ironic.
>
So, you gonna answer the question?
--
Paul B The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new
respectability to uninformed opinion. - John Lawton