Some new/additional vulnerabilities have been defined which may be of
interest should you be running JAVA and Office applications [2002 - up]
[Excel, Word, other]. It is recommended to review these potential
issues, and seek updates or fixes if/when available.

http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB09-320.html

In message <#x8AnktZKHA.5976@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB 
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
> Some new/additional vulnerabilities have been defined which may be of
>interest should you be running JAVA and Office applications [2002 - up]
>[Excel, Word, other]. It is recommended to review these potential
>issues, and seek updates or fixes if/when available.
>
>http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB09-320.html

How would a '98 user do the reviewing, i. e. establish whether the 
vulnerabilities exist in '98? (And yes, I have looked at the page - 
though wouldn't claim to have understood it.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I'm not against women. Not often enough, anyway." - Groucho Marx

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <#x8AnktZKHA.5976@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Some new/additional vulnerabilities have been defined which may be of
>> interest should you be running JAVA and Office applications [2002 - up]
>> [Excel, Word, other]. It is recommended to review these potential
>> issues, and seek updates or fixes if/when available.
>>
>> http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB09-320.html
> 
> How would a '98 user do the reviewing, i. e. establish whether the
> vulnerabilities exist in '98? (And yes, I have looked at the page -
> though wouldn't claim to have understood it.)

 Is that a real question or is this just another walk down some lane you
have in mind...
 How about you think about JAVA [which is its own environment] then
think about whether the vulnerabilities/issues might be related to the
version itself, for the most part. Since there are no elevation of
privileges necessary in 9X, not much that would need overcome by a hack
or code or otherwise, would there be.

 As for the Office vulnerabilities: what do you think...

-- 
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

In message <#szSj8yZKHA.5276@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB 
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <#x8AnktZKHA.5976@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
>> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>>> Some new/additional vulnerabilities have been defined which may be of
>>> interest should you be running JAVA and Office applications [2002 - up]
>>> [Excel, Word, other]. It is recommended to review these potential
>>> issues, and seek updates or fixes if/when available.
>>>
>>> http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB09-320.html
>>
>> How would a '98 user do the reviewing, i. e. establish whether the
>> vulnerabilities exist in '98? (And yes, I have looked at the page -
>> though wouldn't claim to have understood it.)
>
> Is that a real question or is this just another walk down some lane you
>have in mind...

Genuine, for others' benefit ...

> How about you think about JAVA [which is its own environment] then
>think about whether the vulnerabilities/issues might be related to the
>version itself, for the most part. Since there are no elevation of

Not having your experience, I wouldn't get very far with that kind of 
thinking (-:. I could just ask you do these vulnerabilities affect 98 or 
not, but I know you want us to do some of the thinking, so am trying to 
figure out how: first you told me to "review" it/them, now you're 
telling me to "think about" them - but I don't know how.

>privileges necessary in 9X, not much that would need overcome by a hack
>or code or otherwise, would there be.

I shouldn't say this since I write convoluted sentences too, so it's 
pots and kettles, but that last sentence is a bit Yoda-like ...
>
> As for the Office vulnerabilities: what do you think...
>
I'd be most surprised if Office isn't riddled with them. (Not that it's 
bad, it's just big, and popular.) But how would I - or an "innocent" 
98-user - know if the specific new ones mentioned in the report you 
lined to, affect it under 98? And, what would I/he do about it if they 
do?
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I'm not against women. Not often enough, anyway." - Groucho Marx

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <#szSj8yZKHA.5276@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <#x8AnktZKHA.5976@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
>>> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>> Some new/additional vulnerabilities have been defined which may be of
>>>> interest should you be running JAVA and Office applications [2002 - up]
>>>> [Excel, Word, other]. It is recommended to review these potential
>>>> issues, and seek updates or fixes if/when available.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB09-320.html
>>>
>>> How would a '98 user do the reviewing, i. e. establish whether the
>>> vulnerabilities exist in '98? (And yes, I have looked at the page -
>>> though wouldn't claim to have understood it.)
>>
>> Is that a real question or is this just another walk down some lane you
>> have in mind...
> 
> Genuine, for others' benefit ...
> 
>> How about you think about JAVA [which is its own environment] then
>> think about whether the vulnerabilities/issues might be related to the
>> version itself, for the most part. Since there are no elevation of
> 
> Not having your experience, I wouldn't get very far with that kind of
> thinking (-:. I could just ask you do these vulnerabilities affect 98 or
> not, but I know you want us to do some of the thinking, so am trying to
> figure out how: first you told me to "review" it/them, now you're
> telling me to "think about" them - but I don't know how.

 I told you, it is an environment, as in, running with little control in
*whatever OS it is installed in*. The vulnerabilities exist IN IT. Did
you see a mention for any OS, NO, it was for specific *JAVA*
versions/installations AS DEFINED.

 So what the heck do you need to know.. or rather supposedly, since this
IS just another of your recent postings styles in this group..
 Who's next, 98 Guy or one of the others with nothing better to do...
which worthless entity will pop-in now...

> 
>> privileges necessary in 9X, not much that would need overcome by a hack
>> or code or otherwise, would there be.
> 
> I shouldn't say this since I write convoluted sentences too, so it's
> pots and kettles, but that last sentence is a bit Yoda-like ...

 Cut the crap, I'm not playing your games anymore... if you can't
understand anything then what the frig are you posting for and about...
you should be looking at the materials which explain it all to you...

>>
>> As for the Office vulnerabilities: what do you think...
>>
> I'd be most surprised if Office isn't riddled with them. (Not that it's
> bad, it's just big, and popular.) But how would I - or an "innocent"
> 98-user - know if the specific new ones mentioned in the report you
> lined to, affect it under 98? And, what would I/he do about it if they do?

 Gee, how about looking at the links *within* the vulnerability
reports,,, might be a REAL good place to start...
 OR you can rattle on under this subject heading for awhile...

-- 
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

In message <#Mpt8azZKHA.3520@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB 
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <#szSj8yZKHA.5276@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
>> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>> In message <#x8AnktZKHA.5976@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
>>>> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>> Some new/additional vulnerabilities have been defined which may be of
>>>>> interest should you be running JAVA and Office applications [2002 - up]
>>>>> [Excel, Word, other]. It is recommended to review these potential
>>>>> issues, and seek updates or fixes if/when available.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB09-320.html

A well-intentioned warning.
>>>>
>>>> How would a '98 user do the reviewing, i. e. establish whether the
>>>> vulnerabilities exist in '98? (And yes, I have looked at the page -
>>>> though wouldn't claim to have understood it.)

My response, since you posted the warning in a '98 'group, and no other, 
was in effect asking whether the new/additional vulnerabilities were 
relevant to '98. I appreciate that you may not know the answer to that.
>>>
>>> Is that a real question or is this just another walk down some lane you
>>> have in mind...
>>
>> Genuine, for others' benefit ...
>>
>>> How about you think about JAVA [which is its own environment] then
>>> think about whether the vulnerabilities/issues might be related to the
>>> version itself, for the most part. Since there are no elevation of
>>
>> Not having your experience, I wouldn't get very far with that kind of
>> thinking (-:. I could just ask you do these vulnerabilities affect 98 or
>> not, but I know you want us to do some of the thinking, so am trying to
>> figure out how: first you told me to "review" it/them, now you're
>> telling me to "think about" them - but I don't know how.
>
> I told you, it is an environment, as in, running with little control in
>*whatever OS it is installed in*. The vulnerabilities exist IN IT. Did
>you see a mention for any OS, NO, it was for specific *JAVA*
>versions/installations AS DEFINED.

There was an implicit mention of 98 by the warning being posted in, 
only, a '98 'group - you didn't cross-post it to any other OS 'groups 
nor any Java ones, solely this one. I presume you had a reason for doing 
that; maybe I am wrong.
>
> So what the heck do you need to know.. or rather supposedly, since this
>IS just another of your recent postings styles in this group..

I don't _need_ to know, I just _wanted_ to know why you posted this 
warning here and only here.

> Who's next, 98 Guy or one of the others with nothing better to do...
>which worthless entity will pop-in now...

Pots and kettles ...
>
>>
>>> privileges necessary in 9X, not much that would need overcome by a hack
>>> or code or otherwise, would there be.
>>
>> I shouldn't say this since I write convoluted sentences too, so it's
>> pots and kettles, but that last sentence is a bit Yoda-like ...
>
> Cut the crap, I'm not playing your games anymore... if you can't
>understand anything then what the frig are you posting for and about...
>you should be looking at the materials which explain it all to you...
>
I can understand plenty; I can even make an educated guess at what the 
sentence "Since there are no elevation of privileges necessary in 9X, 
not much that would need overcome by a hack or code or otherwise, would 
there be." was trying to say. It certainly isn't very clear though!
>>>
>>> As for the Office vulnerabilities: what do you think...
>>>
>> I'd be most surprised if Office isn't riddled with them. (Not that it's
>> bad, it's just big, and popular.) But how would I - or an "innocent"
>> 98-user - know if the specific new ones mentioned in the report you
>> lined to, affect it under 98? And, what would I/he do about it if they do?
>
> Gee, how about looking at the links *within* the vulnerability
>reports,,, might be a REAL good place to start...
> OR you can rattle on under this subject heading for awhile...
>
It might indeed. I just assumed that, since you posted the warning in a 
98-only 'group, you'd already done some of that for us. I was wrong, or 
if I was right, you've now decided not to share your insights. Which is 
your right of course.

I had tried to keep this polite.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

All I ask is to _prove_ that money can't make me happy.

On 11/17/2009 05:39 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <#Mpt8azZKHA.3520@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <#szSj8yZKHA.5276@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
>>> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>> In message <#x8AnktZKHA.5976@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
>>>>> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> Some new/additional vulnerabilities have been defined which may be of
>>>>>> interest should you be running JAVA and Office applications [2002
>>>>>> - up]
>>>>>> [Excel, Word, other]. It is recommended to review these potential
>>>>>> issues, and seek updates or fixes if/when available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB09-320.html
> 
> A well-intentioned warning.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would a '98 user do the reviewing, i. e. establish whether the
>>>>> vulnerabilities exist in '98? (And yes, I have looked at the page -
>>>>> though wouldn't claim to have understood it.)
> 
> My response, since you posted the warning in a '98 'group, and no other,
> was in effect asking whether the new/additional vulnerabilities were
> relevant to '98. I appreciate that you may not know the answer to that.

 HEY READ THE STUFF AGAIN.. maybe if I shout at you you might actually
do it... the ISSUES ARE THE VULNERABILITIES IN *JAVA*.. the ability to
use crafted codes and other *within* JAVA BASED INCIDENCES IN THE OS AND
OTHER AS DEFINED WITHIN THE MATERIALS.

 DO YOU HAVE ##JAVA INSTALLED## YES? THEN THE VULNERABILITY EXISTS IN
YOUR SYSTEM... are they known to exist? YEAH THEY ARE KNOWN TO EXIST..
 Can JAVA be used to determine the ACTUAL SYSTEM IT IS RUN IN? *YES* and
so can server side includes... so is there a potential your 9X system
could be subjected to unwanted activities due to these vulnerabilities?
YES YOUR SYSTEM, REGARDLESS OF WHICH OS, MAY BE SUBJECTED TO UNWANTED
MALWARE, HACKS, OR OTHER ACTIVITIES DUE TO THESE VULNERABILITIES.

 NOW really are you this friggin dense or what....

>>>>
>>>> Is that a real question or is this just another walk down some lane you
>>>> have in mind...
>>>
>>> Genuine, for others' benefit ...
>>>
>>>> How about you think about JAVA [which is its own environment] then
>>>> think about whether the vulnerabilities/issues might be related to the
>>>> version itself, for the most part. Since there are no elevation of
>>>
>>> Not having your experience, I wouldn't get very far with that kind of
>>> thinking (-:. I could just ask you do these vulnerabilities affect 98 or
>>> not, but I know you want us to do some of the thinking, so am trying to
>>> figure out how: first you told me to "review" it/them, now you're
>>> telling me to "think about" them - but I don't know how.
>>
>> I told you, it is an environment, as in, running with little control in
>> *whatever OS it is installed in*. The vulnerabilities exist IN IT. Did
>> you see a mention for any OS, NO, it was for specific *JAVA*
>> versions/installations AS DEFINED.
> 
> There was an implicit mention of 98 by the warning being posted in,
> only, a '98 'group - you didn't cross-post it to any other OS 'groups
> nor any Java ones, solely this one. I presume you had a reason for doing
> that; maybe I am wrong.
>>
>> So what the heck do you need to know.. or rather supposedly, since this
>> IS just another of your recent postings styles in this group..
> 
> I don't _need_ to know, I just _wanted_ to know why you posted this
> warning here and only here.

 BECAUSE I POST HERE, YOU WANT THIS MATERIAL ELSEWHERE - YOU POST IT
ELSEWHERE, I OWE NO USERS OF OTHER OSs ANYTHING, and I have finished my
penance for recommending 9X to anyone... though I still post these
warnings and advisements BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE BOTHERS TOO.

 Now really take the rest of your junk somewhere else, I'm done with
your f-upped games.

> 
>> Who's next, 98 Guy or one of the others with nothing better to do...
>> which worthless entity will pop-in now...
> 
> Pots and kettles ...
>>
>>>
>>>> privileges necessary in 9X, not much that would need overcome by a hack
>>>> or code or otherwise, would there be.
>>>
>>> I shouldn't say this since I write convoluted sentences too, so it's
>>> pots and kettles, but that last sentence is a bit Yoda-like ...
>>
>> Cut the crap, I'm not playing your games anymore... if you can't
>> understand anything then what the frig are you posting for and about...
>> you should be looking at the materials which explain it all to you...
>>
> I can understand plenty; I can even make an educated guess at what the
> sentence "Since there are no elevation of privileges necessary in 9X,
> not much that would need overcome by a hack or code or otherwise, would
> there be." was trying to say. It certainly isn't very clear though!
>>>>
>>>> As for the Office vulnerabilities: what do you think...
>>>>
>>> I'd be most surprised if Office isn't riddled with them. (Not that it's
>>> bad, it's just big, and popular.) But how would I - or an "innocent"
>>> 98-user - know if the specific new ones mentioned in the report you
>>> lined to, affect it under 98? And, what would I/he do about it if
>>> they do?
>>
>> Gee, how about looking at the links *within* the vulnerability
>> reports,,, might be a REAL good place to start...
>> OR you can rattle on under this subject heading for awhile...
>>
> It might indeed. I just assumed that, since you posted the warning in a
> 98-only 'group, you'd already done some of that for us. I was wrong, or
> if I was right, you've now decided not to share your insights. Which is
> your right of course.
> 
> I had tried to keep this polite.

 Yeah right. Sure ya did. That's why you asked these stupid questions
and didn't bother to use whatever mental capacity you supposedly have.
Who do you think would be fooled by this junk of yours... you have the
materials, you have a brain, you have additional linked materials..
FRAKKEN USE THEM.

-- 
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

In message <#uBtsN$ZKHA.5608@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB 
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
[MUCH RANTING SNIPPED]
>>> *whatever OS it is installed in*. The vulnerabilities exist IN IT. Did
>>> you see a mention for any OS, NO, it was for specific *JAVA*
>>> versions/installations AS DEFINED.
>>
>> There was an implicit mention of 98 by the warning being posted in,
>> only, a '98 'group - you didn't cross-post it to any other OS 'groups
>> nor any Java ones, solely this one. I presume you had a reason for doing
>> that; maybe I am wrong.
>>>
>>> So what the heck do you need to know.. or rather supposedly, since this
>>> IS just another of your recent postings styles in this group..
>>
>> I don't _need_ to know, I just _wanted_ to know why you posted this
>> warning here and only here.
>
> BECAUSE I POST HERE, YOU WANT THIS MATERIAL ELSEWHERE - YOU POST IT
>ELSEWHERE, I OWE NO USERS OF OTHER OSs ANYTHING, and I have finished my

OK, I understand - you choose to bombard us with such warnings, but here 
only.

>penance for recommending 9X to anyone... though I still post these

I haven't seen you _recommending_ '98 to anyone for some time.

>warnings and advisements BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE BOTHERS TOO.

But only here.
>
> Now really take the rest of your junk somewhere else, I'm done with
>your f-upped games.
>
The feeling is mutual.
[]
>> I had tried to keep this polite.
>
> Yeah right. Sure ya did. That's why you asked these stupid questions
>and didn't bother to use whatever mental capacity you supposedly have.

So my capacities are doubtful ...

>Who do you think would be fooled by this junk of yours... you have the
>materials, you have a brain, you have additional linked materials..

.... or I do have a brain, make your mind up. But let's close this one, 
shall we?
[]
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

All I ask is to _prove_ that money can't make me happy.

On 11/18/2009 03:51 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <#uBtsN$ZKHA.5608@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, MEB
> <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
> []
> [MUCH RANTING SNIPPED]
>>>> *whatever OS it is installed in*. The vulnerabilities exist IN IT. Did
>>>> you see a mention for any OS, NO, it was for specific *JAVA*
>>>> versions/installations AS DEFINED.
>>>
>>> There was an implicit mention of 98 by the warning being posted in,
>>> only, a '98 'group - you didn't cross-post it to any other OS 'groups
>>> nor any Java ones, solely this one. I presume you had a reason for doing
>>> that; maybe I am wrong.
>>>>
>>>> So what the heck do you need to know.. or rather supposedly, since this
>>>> IS just another of your recent postings styles in this group..
>>>
>>> I don't _need_ to know, I just _wanted_ to know why you posted this
>>> warning here and only here.
>>
>> BECAUSE I POST HERE, YOU WANT THIS MATERIAL ELSEWHERE - YOU POST IT
>> ELSEWHERE, I OWE NO USERS OF OTHER OSs ANYTHING, and I have finished my
> 
> OK, I understand - you choose to bombard us with such warnings, but here
> only.
> 
>> penance for recommending 9X to anyone... though I still post these
> 
> I haven't seen you _recommending_ '98 to anyone for some time.
> 
>> warnings and advisements BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE BOTHERS TOO.
> 
> But only here.
>>
>> Now really take the rest of your junk somewhere else, I'm done with
>> your f-upped games.
>>
> The feeling is mutual.
> []
>>> I had tried to keep this polite.
>>
>> Yeah right. Sure ya did. That's why you asked these stupid questions
>> and didn't bother to use whatever mental capacity you supposedly have.
> 
> So my capacities are doubtful ...
> 
>> Who do you think would be fooled by this junk of yours... you have the
>> materials, you have a brain, you have additional linked materials..
> 
> ... or I do have a brain, make your mind up. But let's close this one,
> shall we?
> []

 How about you stop PLAYING the fool in this group...

http://www.google.com/search?q=Usenet+J.+P.+Gilliver+%28John%29

 Like I said, I'm done playing stupid Usenet games, and you are one I
have no more tolerance for..

-- 
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" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:eVjyb7FaKHA.196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
<snip>
> Like I said, I'm done playing stupid Usenet games, and you are one I
> have no more tolerance for..
<snip>

Try a web based "Forum" it may suit your "temperament" more. 

On 11/18/2009 05:20 PM, Sunny wrote:
> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:eVjyb7FaKHA.196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> <snip>
>> Like I said, I'm done playing stupid Usenet games, and you are one I
>> have no more tolerance for..
> <snip>
> 
> Try a web based "Forum" it may suit your "temperament" more. 
> 
> 

Ahha, here's another one... yet one more party as Troll..

 So does it offend you that I can handle types such as you..
 Who's next, 98 Guy, Jeff, some new entity...

 Seems your type takes great effort attempting to discredit parties and
viable materials, don't you.. you also seem to take pleasure destroying
groups and/or taking over groups... but then you have already been
identified; posts placed related to your activities and what you are;
and other; have already been attended to..
 So did you have anything of value to add pursuant the subject heading
or related materials...

-- 
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" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ebiFC9JaKHA.1596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> On 11/18/2009 05:20 PM, Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eVjyb7FaKHA.196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> <snip>
>>> Like I said, I'm done playing stupid Usenet games, and you are one I
>>> have no more tolerance for..
>> <snip>
>>
>> Try a web based "Forum" it may suit your "temperament" more.
>>
>>
>
> Ahha, here's another one... yet one more party as Troll..
>
> So does it offend you that I can handle types such as you..
> Who's next, 98 Guy, Jeff, some new entity...
<snip>

You only "handle types" in your ego stroking dreams.

> So did you have anything of value to add pursuant the subject heading
> or related materials...

No, except that your "anything of value" is just your opinion and nothing 
more. 

In message <ebiFC9JaKHA.1596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, MEB 
<MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
>On 11/18/2009 05:20 PM, Sunny wrote:
>> "MEB" <MEB-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eVjyb7FaKHA.196@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> <snip>
>>> Like I said, I'm done playing stupid Usenet games, and you are one I
>>> have no more tolerance for..
>> <snip>
>>
>> Try a web based "Forum" it may suit your "temperament" more.
>>
>>
>
>Ahha, here's another one... yet one more party as Troll..
>
> So does it offend you that I can handle types such as you..
> Who's next, 98 Guy, Jeff, some new entity...
>
> Seems your type takes great effort attempting to discredit parties and

Pots and kettles again. I don't think I've often tried to discredit 
"parties" - only one recently, anyway (-:

>viable materials, don't you.. you also seem to take pleasure destroying
>groups and/or taking over groups... but then you have already been

Likewise, I/we don't try to "take over" 'groups; as for destroying them, 
I think you've at least as much to answer there as we do, for this one, 
anyway. (Sorry, that sentence is a bit like one of yours.)
[]
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"Bother," said the Borg, "we assimilated a Pooh."