MEB
2010-05-14 17:04:50 UTC
Hey 98 Guy, learn how to PROPERLY create new discussions...
I suppose this is beyond your abilities since you constantly display
you ARE a moron...
I know you wouldn't, because you don't actually run Windows 98, and
haven't for years.
BS. More of your deliberately false statements. The date of my ending
was posted within this group [end of 2009], discussed within this group,
received your typical moronic responses, and included the reason for
discontinuing usage "out here".
You have posted that you stopped using Win9X in 2006/2007 and were
using a pirated copy of XP [at that time, likely you are using a newer
pirated copy OS]. You also posted this previously in various other
forums/groups.
sense enough to realize that you CONSTANTLY show the world that you are
not only a fraud, a liar, a troll, and a criminal, but that you are so
stupid you think these posts disappear. I suppose there are those across
the world that ARE susceptible to your frauds and lies, those with a
brain aren't.
Here's evidence of one of your more recent POS posts regarding this, and
my response.
I wrote this in response to your normal set of lies:
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 00:32:26 -0400
From: MEB <MEB-not-***@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Opera - Firefox 2.0.0.20 is filled with vulnerabilities
What a goofball statement.
Of course it is.
And from a security POV, it's more up-to-date than IE6 is.
Yeah, so... its still filed vulnerabilities, everything starting with
Firefox 3.0.5/6 hasn't been fixed in EOL Firefox 2 but likely affects it
as well.
Check the source:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/
During support for FF2 it generally received similar updates as in FF3
EXCEPT those specific to the changes creating FF3.
** Security Advisories for Firefox 2.0
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox20.html
"Firefox 2.0 is no longer supported and the last update, Firefox
2.0.0.20, is affected by several vulnerabilities fixed in newer versions
of the program. All users are urged to upgrade to the newest version of
Firefox."
It links to this page for vulnerabilities EOL/EOS:
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox30.html
It supposedly notes in those vulnerabilities when FF2 is NOT vulnerable
or affected [after EOL] to that particular issue or the issue was fixed
via the last two or three FF2 updates, HOWEVER, one must also READ the
bug reports and comments as they may actually indicate otherwise,
particularly against base files or engine.
After EOL other XSS exploits were found and discussed in the developers
forums affecting FF2.0.0.20; the PNG vulnerability affected all versions
which included the library [FF2 does]; javascript vulnerabilities which
affected FF2 [for the most part] can be checked against the
engine/version in the developer discussions however most do not address
1.7 as that was FF2, also note that FF's java script support is actually
a blend of three; and the list goes on; well beyond the supposed 4 or so
"known" {reported} vulnerabilities purportedly left in FF2.
No "authority" or bug tracking service or otherwise, bothered to list
these as FF2 vulnerabilities/bugs as it was EOL and the "bugs" were not
leveraged at/listed for the EOL FF2. The same thing happened with Win9X
versions, other EOL OSs, or browser versions in EOL OSs, and other
participating applications.
A heck of a lot more than you do. Why? I make an effort to find out
unlike you mouthing garbage you pulled out {of} the landfill...
Really, now you purport I'm a coward... that's funny. YOU, on the other
hand, are a worthless, mindless, lying, stealing, openly moronic slug
without ANY intelligence.
*I* posted the EXACT time period [you even posted some of your moronic
crap in that discussion] when I stopped using Win9X "out here" [I still
use it] AND the reasons for that. And HAVE REPEATEDLY posted the
applicable materials for this supposed FF2 crap of yours in this forum.
Do your own research, the materials are ONCE AGAIN LINKED; oh I forgot
you haven't the brain to do so and within two months or so you'll claim
they were never placed [once cleared from the forums and archives]...
YOU, on the other hand, haven't used Win9X since you bragged in this
forum [and elsewhere] you were using a pirated copy of XP, around the
end of 2006 or in 2007 wasn't it.
INSTEAD, you forge identifiers to make it APPEAR you use Win9X.
SOOOOOOO dorkidum, what other stupid stuff do you have to post here?
-- MEB
I suppose this is beyond your abilities since you constantly display
you ARE a moron...
Naturally we 98 users have been applying the IE6-SP1 updates and
patches to our system that have been made available for win-2k -
haven't we?
Why would "we";patches to our system that have been made available for win-2k -
haven't we?
haven't for years.
was posted within this group [end of 2009], discussed within this group,
received your typical moronic responses, and included the reason for
discontinuing usage "out here".
You have posted that you stopped using Win9X in 2006/2007 and were
using a pirated copy of XP [at that time, likely you are using a newer
pirated copy OS]. You also posted this previously in various other
forums/groups.
You have an axe to grind over IE6 and it's applicability to Windows 98.
One would think that because of that, that you would recommend win-98
users switch to Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead of continuing to run IE6. IE6
is 4 years out-of-date for win-98 users, but Firefox is only 1.5 years
out of date. But you refuse to speak to that point.
I'm a fraud huh, you are a "in the world's face liar" that hasn't evenOne would think that because of that, that you would recommend win-98
users switch to Firefox 2.0.0.20 instead of continuing to run IE6. IE6
is 4 years out-of-date for win-98 users, but Firefox is only 1.5 years
out of date. But you refuse to speak to that point.
sense enough to realize that you CONSTANTLY show the world that you are
not only a fraud, a liar, a troll, and a criminal, but that you are so
stupid you think these posts disappear. I suppose there are those across
the world that ARE susceptible to your frauds and lies, those with a
brain aren't.
Here's evidence of one of your more recent POS posts regarding this, and
my response.
I wrote this in response to your normal set of lies:
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 00:32:26 -0400
From: MEB <MEB-not-***@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Opera - Firefox 2.0.0.20 is filled with vulnerabilities
Firefox 2.0.0.20 is a perfectly capable browser for win-98.
No it isn't,Of course it is.
And from a security POV, it's more up-to-date than IE6 is.
Firefox 3.0.5/6 hasn't been fixed in EOL Firefox 2 but likely affects it
as well.
Check the source:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/
During support for FF2 it generally received similar updates as in FF3
EXCEPT those specific to the changes creating FF3.
** Security Advisories for Firefox 2.0
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox20.html
"Firefox 2.0 is no longer supported and the last update, Firefox
2.0.0.20, is affected by several vulnerabilities fixed in newer versions
of the program. All users are urged to upgrade to the newest version of
Firefox."
It links to this page for vulnerabilities EOL/EOS:
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox30.html
It supposedly notes in those vulnerabilities when FF2 is NOT vulnerable
or affected [after EOL] to that particular issue or the issue was fixed
via the last two or three FF2 updates, HOWEVER, one must also READ the
bug reports and comments as they may actually indicate otherwise,
particularly against base files or engine.
After EOL other XSS exploits were found and discussed in the developers
forums affecting FF2.0.0.20; the PNG vulnerability affected all versions
which included the library [FF2 does]; javascript vulnerabilities which
affected FF2 [for the most part] can be checked against the
engine/version in the developer discussions however most do not address
1.7 as that was FF2, also note that FF's java script support is actually
a blend of three; and the list goes on; well beyond the supposed 4 or so
"known" {reported} vulnerabilities purportedly left in FF2.
No "authority" or bug tracking service or otherwise, bothered to list
these as FF2 vulnerabilities/bugs as it was EOL and the "bugs" were not
leveraged at/listed for the EOL FF2. The same thing happened with Win9X
versions, other EOL OSs, or browser versions in EOL OSs, and other
participating applications.
But what do you know?
unlike you mouthing garbage you pulled out {of} the landfill...
When was the last time you used win-98 as your default, daily-use OS?
You are a coward - because you will not answer that question. And you
will prove exactly that in your reply.
You are a coward - because you will not answer that question. And you
will prove exactly that in your reply.
hand, are a worthless, mindless, lying, stealing, openly moronic slug
without ANY intelligence.
*I* posted the EXACT time period [you even posted some of your moronic
crap in that discussion] when I stopped using Win9X "out here" [I still
use it] AND the reasons for that. And HAVE REPEATEDLY posted the
applicable materials for this supposed FF2 crap of yours in this forum.
Do your own research, the materials are ONCE AGAIN LINKED; oh I forgot
you haven't the brain to do so and within two months or so you'll claim
they were never placed [once cleared from the forums and archives]...
YOU, on the other hand, haven't used Win9X since you bragged in this
forum [and elsewhere] you were using a pirated copy of XP, around the
end of 2006 or in 2007 wasn't it.
INSTEAD, you forge identifiers to make it APPEAR you use Win9X.
SOOOOOOO dorkidum, what other stupid stuff do you have to post here?
-- MEB
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---