Re: Damn I'm Good!

In article <jtmckee-96C75A.17411626052006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Josh McKee <jtmckee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

Of course it's correct if they agree with you... and many of us do agree
about making the changes. What's foolish is to pretend that it's not a
problem for the Windows world. That it has an easy fix has got to be
frustrating for people that know what it can fix... but that's not
evidence that it is *as* safe as OSX... which is (or should be) the
advocacy point here. IMO, Windows, as the platform with known (and
severe) security problems has the burden to show how it can be *as* safe
as OSX if you are advocating. If we are to believe what Snit has written
(I haven't seen you argue against it) apparently you have gotten malware
even with the fix. Is this true?


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.


I've used them... since you made the suggestions... and I thank you for
doing so. I can see your point about it not being the OS's fault if
people don't follow the suggestions but I still can't help but wonder
why more people don't that are able to (yes, I read your answer on this
elsewhere).



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?

You know he'll endlessly ask you for the same *** over and over.


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.

The argument that 'Windows, as currently being used by the public, isn't
particularly secure' is not a bogus argument.


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.


I, and many Mac users here, accept the likelihood that it's more secure
with the changes. Are you defining a "Maccie" as someone who says
otherwise? Why all the weaseling on defining a word you keep using? I
don't understand this kind of ***.

--
Not only do I lie about what others are claiming, I show evidence from the
 records. - Snif
Even in the U.S., even in a court room, a lack of proof is not a
refutation. - Snif
I seriously wanted to be carted away. I need help. I now see that. - Snif
.

Quantcast