On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:08:25 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:

SNIP

>Don't count on that.
>
>Several years ago, Real Networks was *the* first so-called "mainstream"
>company to jump into the privacy-invasion business (in the guise of
>"marketing demographics") with both feet. They have NOT reformed since
>then. They are utter slimeballs (and big-time spammers -- but that's sort'a
>synonymous). They've been sued over it multiple times, and AFAIK, lost
>every time. They have *still* not reformed. It is a lead-pipe cinch that
>ANYTHING they give away (and probably anything they sell) will be a trojan,
>in at least some way.

SNIP

>If there is still ANY doubt in your mind about these low-lifes, see:
>
><http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Real+Networks%22+group:news.admin.net-abuse.email&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=G>
>
>There are no "good" experiences to be had using Real Networks crapware.

Can't say that I disagree with anything you said. If a web site
is stupid enough to use Real, then I have no interest in their
site, PERIOD.

BoB