Re: Damn I'm Good!

In article <C09CE55F.4F9D3%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Josh McKee" <jtmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
jtmckee-96C75A.17411626052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/26/06 4:41 PM:

In article <C09CD484.4F9AC%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Josh McKee" <jtmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
jtmckee-430E36.15070726052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/26/06 2:07 PM:

In article <C09C6E0D.4F89A%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Josh McKee" <jtmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
jtmckee-2BC914.17123825052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/25/06 4:12
PM:

In article <C09B82FA.4F786%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Josh McKee" <jtmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
jtmckee-EC7E6A.16043725052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 5/25/06 3:04
PM:

It's not one piece of malware that's convincing. It's that it's
*another* piece of malware that is stopped by my suggestion that
should
be convincing.

You are awfully proud of joining the bandwagon of folks who suggest
using a
non-Admin account. I still am not sure why.

What leads you to conclude that I'm jumping on a bandwagon?

You are agreeing with the many others who make the same suggestion.

Agreement constitutes jumping on a bandwagon?

Hmmm, looking up the definition of "jump on a bandwagon" I find only "To
profit from a craze." Using a non-admin account is not a "craze", so I
would agree my wording was poor. Still, you are merely agreeing with
many
others about non-admin accounts and acting as if you are educating those
you
agree with.

If they agreed with me they'd stop making the posts that they do about
Windows security. They would realize how foolish such posts are.

Incorrect.

Completely correct.

It is not as though you created the concept of using non-Admin account

I don't recall having said that I did.

and that doing so helps protect against at least some of the malware
that
is out there.

Some is an understatement.

Even you have agreed it is not all.

But it would be a significant portion. Especially when it comes to the
ones that have done the billions upon billions of damages that is
constantly thrown around.

If so, that shows my point about the difference between what *is* and what
*could be*.

So why do people ignore what could be? Have any of the Maccies that I've
made these recommendations to used them? It doesn't seem as though they
have as they continue to make posts about Windows security. Posts that
would be unnecessary if they would follow the recommendation. Just what
do they have against using the recommendations? They're no cost. They
take all but a few seconds. And they offer a lot in return.

You keep championing this concept as though you were tying to convince
someone, but I have not seen anyone disagree.

Then you're blind. Maccies keep making posts trying to illustrate how
insecure Windows is. If they didn't disagree with my suggestions then
they wouldn't make such posts because their examples would be stopped
by
my suggestions. This post illustrated this point nicely.

Cite. Please. I repeatedly ask you and you repeatedly fail.

You've been provided references in the past. I do not wish to
continuously post references to what is common knowledge.

Please cite you citing...

What part of "I do not wish to continuously post references to what is
common knowledge." is giving you a hard time?

The fact is many people do use an Admin account...

Here we're in agreement. And this is one of the primary reasons that
malware is so successful on Windows.

It is certainly one reason. What do you see as the reasons people do not
use Admin accounts?

Probably because most Windows users aren't aware of it. As for the
Maccies...well, by not using it they can beat the "Windows isn't secure
dead horse" a few more times.

so you claiming that if the facts were different the malware would not
be
as
big of an issue is silly. The facts are the facts.

The idea is to demonstrate that one can use Windows securely at no cost
with some minor change. Why the Maccies don't want to accept this is
beyond me. Well...maybe not. It's probably because the only thing they
have left to sell the Macintosh on is its lack of malware.

Are you claiming people should or should not have anti-malware tools
today?
Seems you go back and forth.

This is irrelevant.

I have seen people talk about some of the down sides of doing so, but
that
is not the same thing as disagreeing. I am at a loss as to why you
are
so
focused on this one idea that, really, is not in contention by anyone
I
can
think of.

I am at a loss as to why Maccies are so obsessed with branding Windows
insecure. Once their obsession disappears I won't have to keep
reminding
them that there is a simple, no cost way to proactively protect ones
self.

You are rather obsessive and, frankly, irrational on this issue.

You repeatedly talk about something different than what others are -
people
talk about how Windows as it exists is insecure and you say that if
people
set it up differently it would be secure. So? As it is - in the "wild"
today - it is prone to lots and lots of malware.

It is. So does that mean people shouldn't take steps to change that? Or
should they only take steps that add cost and are reactive?

Are you against anti-malware software?

Again: Irrelevant.

Josh

You are fighting against straw man, making claims about others you cannot
support,

I've supported all my claims. The fact that you refuse to accept given
support will not change that.

and flip flopping on your view of the value of anti-malware software.

Being irrelevant is not the same thing as flip flopping.

In the end, Josh, you are not being convincing at all.

Apparently not as Maccies refuse to follow my good advice.

Josh
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Damn Im Good!
    ... What leads you to conclude that I'm jumping on a bandwagon? ... Windows security. ... They would realize how foolish such posts are. ... malware is so successful on Windows. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Funny how things change
    ... I mean Snit called me a liar about being an X mac user, ... I WILL NOT BE LOADING WINDOWS. ... when do you think I said you were not a Mac user? ... someone is forging your posts. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Damn Im Good!
    ... Snit wrote: ... They would realize how foolish such posts are. ... have as they continue to make posts about Windows security. ... malware is so successful on Windows. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Damn Im Good!
    ... Snit wrote: ... They would realize how foolish such posts are. ... problem for the Windows world. ... apparently you have gotten malware ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Vista complaints
    ... Windows. ... Are you saying I'm bothered? ... Yeah, counting one a few posts back, I have about seven out of nearly 500 ... OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)