On May 21, 4:56 am, "Ezekiel" <c...@xxxxx> wrote:
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:1271837.9OVJTxAhiO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> > ____/ Book of Job on Tuesday 20 May 2008 12:49 : \____
>
> >> Linonut <lino...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >>news:iIyYj.25280$C8.8937@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> >>> * Book of Job peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
> >>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >>>>news:8789399.0XtOS087F8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> >>>> *snip*
> >>>>> Pay up or become part of the 320,000,000-PC zombies fleet. You'll
> >>>>> probably become one either way because AV software is no longer
> >>>>> effective (Schneier publicly calls it "snake oil" now).
>
> >>>> Interesting how, for all the claims you make and links you provide,
> >>>> you didn't provide anything to support *this* particular claim.
>
> >>>> The reason? You are lying about what Schneier said. Indeed, he said
> >>>> just the opposite:
>
> >>>> "Antivirus is easy. Antivirus products actually work. They have for
> >>>> years. A lot of the software on [the Infosec] show floor is just
> >>>> snake oil, but antivirus does work. You should have an antivirus
> >>>> program."
>
> >>>> Oh, and I'll provide a link for *my* quote:
>
> >>>> <http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/144938/schneier_lots_of
> >>>> _security_software_is_snake_oil.html>
>
> >>>> I'm sure you'll just claim it was a mistake, a result of posting too
> >>>> quickly without verifying. And yet, your mistake attributes the
> >>>> complete opposite meaning to what was said.
>
> >>>> Odd, that.
>
> >>> Of course, you stopped your quote short. Here's the whole paragraph:
>
> >>> Schneier: Antivirus is easy. Antivirus products actually work. They
> >>> have for years. A lot of the software on this show floor is just
> >>> snake oil, but antivirus does work. You should have an antivirus
> >>> program. You should have it updated regularly. It doesn't make you
> >>> secure, but it gets that bottom layer of the trivial stuff. That's
> >>> why. It's not sufficient but it's certainly necessary.
>
> >> I snipped what was unneccessary to prove Roy's quote false. Whether
> >> it's
> >> "sufficient" or only "gets that bottom layer" is irrelevant to the point
> >> I
> >> was trying to make. The point is that Roy misremembered (or down-right
> >> lied about) Schneier's statement to make it the exact *opposite* of what
> >> he actually said.
>
> >> Now, if you want to make the argument that antivirus by itself is not
> >> enough security, you won't get any argument from me. Security is far
> >> more
> >> comprehensive than just installing a piece of software and going on your
> >> merry way.
>
> > Article's headline:
>
> > "Schneier: Lots of Security Software Is 'snake Oil'"
>
> > I wrote:
>
> > "Schneier publicly calls it [AV software] "snake oil" now"
>
> > Let it rest. You're being pedantic with the sole intention of mocking
> > someone.
>
> And you Roy Schestowitz have a history of being a dishonest liar. Nobody
> believes anything you say or write since it is you who likes to make up
> stories, twist headlines and post links to your own web-site as "proof" of
> something.
>
> You are a dishonest and untrustworthy scumbag and your reputation will
> prevent you from ever getting a job or gainful employment.
>
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
<Quote>
Some of Microsoft’s money goes into mobilizing political astroturf
campaigns. According to Corporate Watch UK, Microsoft has “established
phoney grass-roots groups, hired people to write opinion pieces for
newspapers and magazines, pose as ordinary citizens in various
Internet chat rooms, sponsored polls to make it appear they have a
groundswell of support, and have enlisted their stockholders and
business partners to lobby for them.”
</Quote>
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/05/21/obamas-apple-mccains-microsoft-the-politics-of-tech/#more-1839
|
|
