Dustin Cook wrote:
> 4Q <paul_zest@hushmail.com> wrote in
> news:1186210186.934565.261110@q75g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com:
>
> > Dustin Cook wrote:
> >> 4Q <paul_zest@hushmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:1186178765.339064.121310@19g2000hsx.googlegro ups.com:
> >>
> >> > Dustbin Cook wrote:
> >> >> BugHunter uses a proprietary checksum algorithm that I developed
> >> >> over 14 years ago.
> >
> > <snip>
>
>
> >>
> >> Come back with substance, lamer.
> >>
> >
> > Okay, how about this.
>
> Hahahaha. Okay then.
>
> >> Oh, and you might as well update your page, unless you like being
> >> punched repeatedly in the nose, not to mention how stupid you now
> >> appear to be, what with your claims of string scanning.. HAHAHA. I
> >> told you originally it's not a string scanner. The algorithm is
> >> clearly more advanced than your capable of understanding. Haha.
> >>
> >
> > You stated I had no understanding of
> > how checksummers worked a while back,
> > along with this assumption you also
>
> Are you having trouble comprehending what's written or something? Your
> getting very sloppy in your attempts to skate around my righteous
> assaults. *grin*. I said you claimed BugHunter is a string scanner and
> later you said it was a checksummer or a string scanner, basically you
> didn't know. I've been able to prove that with your own doing, dummy.
>
> I said substance dummy, bring it!
>
>
> > is a computer science / mathematics
> > cookbook full of "algorithms"
>
> Out of curiosity, what concern is it really of yours how it works
> specifically? I don't see symantec or anyone else providing such
> information to anonymous persons. Why do you think I should treat you any
> differently? What makes you think your entitled or special in some
> fashion?
>
> > See if you can get one of your groundhog
> > friends to put on a Harry Potter wizards
>
> *awe*. I 0wned you when I explained the lighting situation and my amusing
> nickname for this area. Give it up, I got you with your own medicine.
> Laugh as I laugh.
>
> Once again, your efforts to troll and derail this thread aren't going so
> well. You wanted to know how it worked, you didn't have the mental
> capacity to figure it out, obviously. So I've told you in a general
> fashion what's going on. I've provided you more information in fact than
> anyone else who writes software like this would. I really don't
> understand why you think your entitled to access to it's source code, or
> specific knowledge of how it works? The general description should be
> adequate. It's more detailed than symantec would offer an anonymous
> person such as yourself.
>

You forgot to include AUK. I thought
the content of your kookie post would
be of interested for future reference
so I've kindly reposted it for you.


4Q