any freeware to kill stuck processes in win 98??

[dszady]

Show us where OP said -=ALL=- (my emphasis) processes, for ****'s sake,
you blithering idiot.

Getting a little edgy there "Dogfish"?

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Getting a little edgy there "Dogfish"?

Yes, "dszady". I'm finally fresh out of patience with his blatherings
and impossibly poor reading comprehension skills. I finally plonked
him, as well. It's not like me resort to name-calling, but I finally
snapped, and I'd rather just avoid the temptation from here on out than
to try and put up with his silly crap any more.

 

[Alan]

It's like trying to punch information into an MS-basher.

Don't you ever get tired of bashing MS bashers ? So what if people are
MS bashers ? What's it to you ?

(1) Do you have shares in Microsoft ? [ ]

(2) You work for Microsoft ? [ ]

(3) You want to do Bill Gates a favour ? [ ]

(4) You just like being a netkop ? [ ]

(5) You don't know how to ignore such posters ? [ ]

(6) You don't know how to delete posts from those posters ? [ ]

(7) Other ? [ X ]

Please "x" as appropriate. I suspect the answer is (4) but am open to
your making another choice.

(7) Like to attempt to maintain a level playing field with balanced
rather than biased information, while at the same time dispelling any
blatantly incorrect babblings and sweeping generalizations,
exaggerations and wanton hysteria, born of a "let's cut down a tall
poppy" syndrome.

Your in-depth questionnaire above indicates your mindset that if someone
is not a MS-basher then they must be a MS-worshipper. Not true in my
case - I have many gripes about the few MS products I use, but they are
based on fact, not hype.

I agree. Some people are so eager to show people that they know of a
process killer that they ignore the fact that the OP said "processes"
and that task killers are generally useless where all ones processes
are stuck.

See Blinky's reply to your post to best sum up my response.

 

[Alan]

Because of some really simple math, John. process 1 + process 2 =
processes. Even in your country, I suspect that plurals can mean more
than one and less than infinity.

Quite correct. And the use of a plural certainly does not automatically
imply "all" (unless there are only 2 of course). Plurals are also used
as non-specific descriptors e.g. "Is there a shop nearby that sells
computers?" I don't think the person asking this is suggesting that a
shop exists that sells ALL computers.

Admittedly, the OP is not worded concisely enough to attribute
unambiguous intent to it... but I think we all know what the question
was... all except John.

 

[Guest]

Y Kill URL : http://www.winsite.com/bin/Info?5000000037816

Once it is installed and running in the background (small system resources
are used.. not noticable difference in speed..

If Win 98 Hangs, press (ctrl alt y if I remember.. read the documents to
verify).. A nice Skull icon popsup and you can dragen drop the skull on a
froze window app and it will die instantly.. Same principle as X-Kill in
linux.

Just don't drop the skull ico on the desktop.. it'll freeze windows and
reboot is all the optiopns left.

and by the way guys.. I'm done arguing about this.. if some people want to
complain that nothing else works, let them bellyuache about it..

In hte meantime, all smart people, try Y-kill or other suggested apps to
find one that works best for you

Hope this helps someone
-Larry B

--

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Getting a little edgy there "Dogfish"?

Think he might be "losing it". He seems incapable of understanding
that "stuck processes" might mean a system freeze of stuck processes.
For some reason he wants to ignore this situation.

Because he chose to interpret things differently he is upset that
anyone can see things differently to himself.

If the OP was talking about a stuck process he would probably have put
that in the header.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Admittedly, the OP is not worded concisely enough to attribute
unambiguous intent to it...

Agreed.

but I think we all know what the question
was... all except John.

Typo perhaps ? I think that should have read :

but I think we all know what the question
was... all except you, and Blinky.


Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Y Kill URL : http://www.winsite.com/bin/Info?5000000037816

Once it is installed and running in the background (small system resources
are used.. not noticable difference in speed..

Memory load here is minimal. I get about 321.1k .

If Win 98 Hangs, press (ctrl alt y if I remember.. read the documents to
verify).. A nice Skull icon popsup and you can dragen drop the skull on a
froze window app and it will die instantly.. Same principle as X-Kill in
linux.

There appears to be two key combinations. ctrl+alt+y and ctrl+alt+x
The first opens it up on the screen and the second opens up the icon
for "quick killing".

< snip >

I have tried out numerous process killers but this one appears to be
very good. Well worth looking at IMO.

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.aspects.org.au/index.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

 

[Alan]

Agreed.


Typo perhaps ? I think that should have read :

but I think we all know what the question
was... all except you, and Blinky.

Your strange take on it seems *not* to coincide with all the other
replies, which propose selective process killers that will only work on
an unfrozen system; just individually hung processes. Typo? Definitely
not.

 

[Alan]

It's like trying to punch information into an MS-basher.
Don't you ever get tired of bashing MS bashers ? So what if people
are MS bashers ? What's it to you ?
(1) Do you have shares in Microsoft ? [ ]
(2) You work for Microsoft ? [ ]
(3) You want to do Bill Gates a favour ? [ ]
(4) You just like being a netkop ? [ ]
(5) You don't know how to ignore such posters ? [ ]
(6) You don't know how to delete posts from those posters ? [ ]
(7) Other ? [ X ]
Please "x" as appropriate. I suspect the answer is (4) but am open
to your making another choice.

(7) Like to attempt to maintain a level playing field with balanced
rather than biased information,

Then why are you here ? I doubt that usenet is the place for
that.

Really? I see the usenet as *the* place where views from all sides can
appear with equal status, since the whole show is unmoderated and
unfiltered. Such an exchange though, will inevitably involve both
argument and mis/disinformation. I'd say that if you can't tolerate the
argument, then 5 & 6 above sound like the right advice. I'm not worried
about people taking a counterstand to mine, so 5 & 6 don't apply, but I
see it as appropriate in any forum to correct the mis/disinformation
that often appears in such discussions/exchanges e.g. if you use IE then
your HD will be erased and your CPU will be vaporized.

< snip >

And are your constant rants against supposed anti-MS people achieving
that end ? I don't think so. Simply adding more "noise".

A level "noise" field then? I'm glad you see all the pointless
MS-bashing as "noise".

You are acting as in (4) and you should follow the advice as per (5)
or (6).

IIRC, I was explaining to Blinky that it is nigh on impossible to get
information through to someone who has already made up their own mind,
as to what the end result is going to be. In the context of this thread,
I referred to the typical MS-basher *mentallity* as an appropriate
example of the epitomy of such difficulty. I didn't refer to any
particular person as an MS-basher. So what's the relevance of the
multiple choice test above?

Still, if you want to keep up your netcop role you are free to do
so.

I really don't see where the "netcop" tag comes from in your mind. I
always thought of a netcop as someone who kicked up about posting style
or something equally pedantic, usually with little regard to content or
accuracy of information. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong. All I recall
first hand, wrt netcops, was being the Rodney King of broken sig
delimiters at one stage, when I had a buggy problem with OE QuoteFix - I
was finally given a solution in amongst the frenzy of swinging truncheon
posts.

 

[DC]

e.g. if you use IE then your HD will be erased and your CPU will be vaporized.

Ah-HA! I *knew* it! };O)

 

[Alan]

Ah-HA! I *knew* it! };O)

Lucky I'm here to dispell such misinformation then! And no DC, there
isn't a Father Christmas either! ;-)

 

[John Fitzsimons]

John Fitzsimons wrote:
It's like trying to punch information into an MS-basher.
Don't you ever get tired of bashing MS bashers ? So what if people
are MS bashers ? What's it to you ?
(1) Do you have shares in Microsoft ? [ ]
(2) You work for Microsoft ? [ ]
(3) You want to do Bill Gates a favour ? [ ]
(4) You just like being a netkop ? [ ]
(5) You don't know how to ignore such posters ? [ ]
(6) You don't know how to delete posts from those posters ? [ ]
(7) Other ? [ X ]
Please "x" as appropriate. I suspect the answer is (4) but am open
to your making another choice.
(7) Like to attempt to maintain a level playing field with balanced
rather than biased information,

Then why are you here ? I doubt that usenet is the place for
that.

Really? I see the usenet as *the* place where views from all sides can
appear with equal status, since the whole show is unmoderated and
unfiltered. Such an exchange though, will inevitably involve both
argument and mis/disinformation. I'd say that if you can't tolerate the
argument, then 5 & 6 above sound like the right advice.

I am happy about discussions. Different points of view etc. It is your
constant rants about real/imagined anti MS people we are talking
about.

Your rants have not, and probably never will, change their minds or
add anything useful to the newsgroup.

I'm not worried
about people taking a counterstand to mine, so 5 & 6 don't apply,

That isn't so. The supposed "MS bashers" are taking a counterstand
to you. This worries you so you won't tolerate it. You constantly jump
on anyone who dislikes MS. Giving them your usual MS rant.

Rather than simply ignoring them.

You are so predictable that a number of people here even pretend to
be anti MS and/or post anti-MS stuff to get a rise out of you. To get
a hearty laugh at your expense.

but I
see it as appropriate in any forum to correct the mis/disinformation
that often appears in such discussions/exchanges e.g. if you use IE then
your HD will be erased and your CPU will be vaporized.

If anyone said something so dopey then I would correct them as well.
They haven't however and you well know it.

Added to that IF such a thing were to occur then you could quite
easily point out the erroneous information without once needing to
use the words "MS bashers".

A level "noise" field then? I'm glad you see all the pointless
MS-bashing as "noise".

Whether I do, or not, isn't the point. Your "noise" serves no useful
purpose. If someone else does something wrong it doesn't IMO mean
that you should.

IIRC, I was explaining to Blinky that it is nigh on impossible to get
information through to someone who has already made up their own mind,
as to what the end result is going to be. In the context of this thread,
I referred to the typical MS-basher *mentallity* as an appropriate
example of the epitomy of such difficulty. I didn't refer to any
particular person as an MS-basher. So what's the relevance of the
multiple choice test above?

You seem to love putting people into little boxes Alan. The "good
guys" those who love Microsoft and the "bad guys" those who don't.
Everything for you is black and white. A guy called McCarthy I think
it was (in the US) would have loved you as an assistant.

I really don't see where the "netcop" tag comes from in your mind. I
always thought of a netcop as someone who kicked up about posting style
or something equally pedantic, usually with little regard to content or
accuracy of information. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong. All I recall
first hand, wrt netcops, was being the Rodney King of broken sig
delimiters at one stage, when I had a buggy problem with OE QuoteFix - I
was finally given a solution in amongst the frenzy of swinging truncheon
posts.

Pedantic would be a perfect description of your constant "MS bashers"
rants. One gets the distinct impression that before you read any post
you say to yourself "Is this post by an "MS basher" ?

If the author is on your "most wanted" list and already categorised
into your cosy little box then that "justifies" (in your mind)
pouncing on him/her with yet another rant.

If he/she isn't then you search through the post hoping to find
something that might imply an "anti MS bias". If that fails you follow
all the links in the post to see if any of the referred sites could be
construed as "anti-MS".

If you then find one that "fits" then I don't quite know whether you
shout out "Eureka" !!!, or not, but I am sure that it certainly "makes
your day".

Now you can justify (in your own mind) making yet another anti
"MS bashers" rant.

This behaviour of yours is typical netcop behaviour. You want to
correct/stop any post that is, (in your mind) unacceptable.

Hope this explains things better. No doubt there is plenty in the
above for you to now call me an "MS basher". So I suppose that
will please you.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Interesting. That pretty much sums up my opinion of all the MS-bashing
(not my terminology BTW)

If you believe MS -bashing will not change anyone's opinion then why
bother with your anti MS-bashing ?

You seem to be making the argument that because other people do wrong
things (in your eyes) so should you. Isn't that your argument ?

that goes on in the group. And that's largely
why I post my counterpoint, in just the same way you are doing here.

I am posting to point out the pointlessness of your never ending
rants. I knew there was only a very remote chance of your realising it
but I thought I would at least give things a go. I can see however
that you are exactly like the MS bashers and have no desire to listen
to reason on this matter.

Errr... your logic escapes me here. Regardless of my own stand, it just
doesn't make sense for me to invent MS-bashing out of the blue, with no
content to reply to. Most of my posts wrt MSB are *in response* to some
of the inane sorts of comments I've referred to i.e. a correction or a
counterstand.

No, you do NOT "correct" information. You constantly go on, and on.
and on, about "MS bashers". IF you simply wanted to correct incorrect
information then you could do so without the need of those words.

This is quite amusing to read in itself. You want me to tolerate, not
jump on, not rant and ignore. Yet you don't seem to mind all the rants,
raves and cage rattling that goes on when somebody might say something
positive about IE or OE. Try rereading what you wrote - quite the double
standard.

There are many pro MS posts I disagree with. There are many anti MS
posts I disagree with. Just because I don't choose to follow your
example of a holy crusade against either group doesn't mean that I
agree with either of them.

I look at each post. By MS bashers and by anti MS bashers. Each one
"on their merit". That's what I was suggesting you do.

My take on this was deliberately exaggerated, as you well know; but if
you like I'll find a post in which one of the regular MSBs does, in
fact, suggest that data on an open network will indeed be susceptible to
destruction by a remote hacker, all because the network uses IE. So my
hyperbole on the kind of misinformation that spews forth from a typical
bash session is not actually *that* far off the mark. You are incorrect.

If someone gives wrong information then you can correct it. No need to
bring in the "MS bashers" rubbish.

Wrong information is wrong information. Irrespective of whether anyone
loves, or hates, MS. It seems that you are only interested in
correcting incorrect information if it is from an "MS basher.

I could, but I tend to try to reply in the same vain as the original
post.

Rather a childish approach IMO. That makes you no better than the
original poster. Doing the things yourself that you are critical of.

A message written in the tone of "yeah M$$$ sukz bigtyme man"
doesn't really merit any sense of politeness or etiquette in the reply
IMHO.

The above is an "opinion". So what ? It doesn't require a reply from
you at all.

I agree. And I may well be guilty of same.

Exactly. You are no better than those you choose to be critical of.

I can't help but notice
though, a conspicuous absence of criticism by you towards the
originators of the "noise". Balance is the term I used I think... but
some people don't like it in practice, just to do a bit of
holier-than-thou preaching about it.

Why should I criticise them ? It would achieve nothing. You obviously
have plenty of time for such pointless posts. I don't.

LOL! Classic! This is exactly what the regular MSBs do!

Sure. You are just like them.

If you take the
time to study some of the threads where this kind of thing flares up,
it's plain as day that they take the complimentary George Bush
approach - if your not against MS, then you're with them. Exactly - they
insist you're in either one pigeonhole or the other. I must admit to
being quite stunned when I first saw myself described as a MS-worshipper
in this group. This was after referring someone to a MS link that held
the answer to their query - nothing to do with praising MS, which I
don't think I've ever done. I only endeavour to correct the bulls&*# and
counter the baseless rants. Yes, there can be only 2 pigeonholes for
some people, me not included. Well spotted.

What "they" do is irrelevant. You are doing the same thing. Also, your
posting will not in any way change "their" behaviour.

Our definitions of pedantic obviously differ. I lean towards the
dictionary definition of "narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously
learned". This fits more (IMO) with the sig-nazis, the line length cops,
the quote-standard quoters etc. But I'm tolerant of other
interpretations. BTW, your impression is incorrect - everyone knows who
the wanton MS bashers are now. They have turned several regulars away
from ACF, as indicated in no uncertain terms in the private e-mails I've
received.

Just like many people are turned away by your never ending "MS
bashers" rants. IMO people come here to discuss freeware. Not to get a
daily rant from you about "MS bashers".

Some of the sites I criticise are simply full of as much, or more,
bulls^&* than the poster of such links. Would you rather say nothing
about this incorrect information for fear of somehow offending?

Not at all. If something is incorrect then correct it. No need for the
MS rant though. You CAN correct false information without even
including the words "MS bashers". Try it some time.

And then the black helicopter arrives and the men in black with their
reflective visors appear. Nothing wrong with your imagination.

And the purpose of your post here is?

As I said above. To point out to you the pointlessness of your
constant anti MS bashers rants.

Since I haven't seen you doing any MS-bashing in this thread, I don't
see it that way. Perhaps if I operated on the Bush principle above, with
just the 2 boxes, I might. But I don't. I'll leave that to the
MS-bashers.

See, you cannot even manage to finish the post without *yet another*
(boring) reference to them. Never heard the term "Live and let live ?"

Regards, John.

 

[Alan]

John Fitzsimons wrote:

If you believe MS -bashing will not change anyone's opinion then why
bother with your anti MS-bashing ?

This question makes no sense. Are you suggesting I'm trying to change
somebody's mind? Not so. I complain in the same way as you're
complaining here in this thread.

You seem to be making the argument that because other people do wrong
things (in your eyes) so should you. Isn't that your argument ?

What I do is exactly what your doing in this prolonged thread. You are
complaining about me complaining about MS-bashing which, in your eyes,
is wrong. Are you unable to see that?

I am posting to point out the pointlessness of your never ending
rants. I knew there was only a very remote chance of your realising it
but I thought I would at least give things a go. I can see however
that you are exactly like the MS bashers and have no desire to listen
to reason on this matter.

They are pointless in your eyes, not mine. If you find them "never
ending", daily, constant, boring, ranting holy crusade... then that's
your own take on it. The terms relating to frequency are inaccurate as
usual, but the others you're entitled to hold as personal opinions. I
regard the MSB posts in much the same light.

No, you do NOT "correct" information.

Yes I DO - "inaccurate" has now degenerated to "false". You state this
without any evidence, the same way you've stated most of your
"arguments" in these posts. Such unqualified statements lend no credence
to what you're saying and, being unsupported, are not worth squat. Look
through some archived stuff on Google Groups and you *will* find such
corrections.

You constantly go on, and on.
and on, about "MS bashers".

Your perception of this clearly annoys you - and you post about it. The
constant MS bashing annoys me - and I post about it.

IF you simply wanted to correct incorrect
information then you could do so without the need of those words.

So you're not only telling me what to say in my posts, you're now
telling me how to say it. This goes beyond even usenet netcop attitude.
It's more at home with some PC¹, bleedin heart political party, where
they not only try to tell you how to act, but also the "right" way to
think. Not a member of such an oppressive group of despot wannabes by
chance?

¹ PC = politically correct

There are many pro MS posts I disagree with. There are many anti MS
posts I disagree with. Just because I don't choose to follow your
example of a holy crusade against either group doesn't mean that I
agree with either of them.

I look at each post. By MS bashers and by anti MS bashers. Each one
"on their merit". That's what I was suggesting you do.

That's your prerogative on the open usenet. I find it neither
commendable nor deplorable that you choose to post in the manner you do;
but that doesn't matter anyway because your mode of response is your own
business. I'm suggesting you mind it.

If someone gives wrong information then you can correct it. No need to
bring in the "MS bashers" rubbish.

Wrong information is wrong information. Irrespective of whether anyone
loves, or hates, MS. It seems that you are only interested in
correcting incorrect information if it is from an "MS basher.

Interesting observation. Although inaccurate again (I've "corrected"
lots of information over a broad range of topics, as I have been
corrected myself over a broad range of issues) it's funny that these
topics should stand out to you. They're certainly the ones that stand
out to me when reading threads, simply because they're the ones with the
gross inaccuracies and hyped up bulls&*% that I've already mentioned -
the blatant/ glaring rubbish if you will - they certainly do stand out.

Rather a childish approach IMO. That makes you no better than the
original poster. Doing the things yourself that you are critical of.

YO is YO. Mine is that such posters often only comprendi the LCD in
which they themselves write. Try anything fancier and you've wasted your
time. But again, how I choose to reply is my prerogative. We *are*,
after all, posting on the open usenet.

The above is an "opinion". So what ? It doesn't require a reply from
you at all.

More inaccuracy - this time in your reading comprehension skills. Note
the words above "in the tone of". I'd agree that if the post *content*
was exactly as I exemplified above, then such a post merits no reply at
all. And that's what it would get from me. But when it carries a message
that all is lost when IE is opened (NOTE - just an example - don't take
it too literally!) then it not only warrants, but deserves, the
corrective action I've mentioned. It's mis/disinformation that needs to
be rectified.

Exactly. You are no better than those you choose to be critical of.

I hope you include yourself too. Have a look at the noise level
associated with this tangent of the thread. And it *is* noise. Ask
yourself whether it serves the kind of "useful purpose" that you expect
of my posts. To quote "You are no better than those you choose to be
critical of."

Why should I criticise them ? It would achieve nothing. You obviously
have plenty of time for such pointless posts. I don't.

LOL! Have a look at the time/ effort you've poured into *this* thread.
You obviously have plenty of time to achieve nothing on *this* issue.

Sure. You are just like them.

As are you. I hope you can see that by now. It seems that there *are* no
little boxes - we are all just one big, happy group, all in the same
box. Welcome John.

What "they" do is irrelevant. You are doing the same thing. Also, your
posting will not in any way change "their" behaviour.

You claim I am doing the same irrelevant thing as "them". But you seem
to see *my* same thing as relevant - otherwise you wouldn't be posting
so frantically over it. You also claim that what I post will not change
"their" behaviour, yet here you are trying to change mine. Surely even
the blindest of the blind can see the double standard here.

Just like many people are turned away by your never ending "MS
bashers" rants. IMO people come here to discuss freeware. Not to get a
daily rant from you about "MS bashers".

Yet another unsubstantiated claim - and I don't refer to the exaggerated
"daily". What's your source of the "many people"? Have you had any
e-mails from disillusioned regulars, stating that they have had enough
of me complaining about the incessant MS-bashing? I suspect you have
just imagined this claim and tossed it in to try to counter what I have
said.

I, OTOH, have had several such mails from ex-regulars (who have had to
resort to e-mail to avoid the frenzy that such posts would generate in
this newsgroup) who had given up the fight and dropped into lurk mode,
or abandoned ACF altogether in disgust. The reasons were *specifically*
the types of MSB posts I have mentioned, authored by the usual suspects.
Have you had any such clear indications from any of the "many people"
you claim to know of ?

The really unfortunate consequence here is that a couple of those who
still participate at a "quiet" level will now, like myself, ignore or
disregard all posts from "certain" people, even if they can offer a
useful solution. It is this that you ought to be concerned about, rather
than whinging about posts that rub you up the wrong way.

Not at all. If something is incorrect then correct it. No need for the
MS rant though. You CAN correct false information without even
including the words "MS bashers". Try it some time.

I do if it's appropriate to the post. Have a search through Google
Groups, where you'll find many such posts. The words "MS bashers" might
appear rather later in the thread, together with terms such as "MS
worshippers"; the latter being the kind of term which doesn't seem to
bother you though.

As I said above. To point out to you the pointlessness of your
constant anti MS bashers rants.

See, you cannot even manage to finish the post without *yet another*
(boring) reference to them. Never heard the term "Live and let live ?"

I can't seem to see much point to all you've said in these posts, other
than your obvious dislike of what I post in response to certain types of
posts <must avoid those words now>. That's entirely your prerogative. So
I'll end by agreeing that too much time has been wasted on this. I also
acknowledge that you can't/ won't understand what I've said either. So
I'll sum up with some verbiage that you should understand:

So what if people critisize MS bashers ? What's it to you ?

(4) You just like being a netkop ? [ ]

(5) You don't know how to ignore such posters ? [ ]

(6) You don't know how to delete posts from those posters ? [ ]

(7) Other ? [ ]

Please "x" as appropriate. I suspect the answer is (4) but am open to
your making another choice.

You are acting as in (4) and you should follow the advice as per (5) or
(6).

Still, if you want to keep up your netcop role you are free to do so.


Your rants have not, and probably never will, change their minds or add
anything useful to the newsgroup.

Live and let live

And in the wisdom of George Orwell:
"doublethink - holding two contradictory ideas in your mind at the same
time and drawing upon each at need to reach a preordained conclusion."

 

[Semolina Pilchard]

It may be because he has a serious mental disturbance, for which I, at
least would have some sympathy. Seems very unlikely, though. It's
much more likely that he's on some sort of bonus-scheme. Given
Microsoft's open antipathy to freeware and Open Source, Alan's the MS
guy sent here to do what damage he can.

 

[Alan]

John Fitzsimons wrote:
I've snipped your reply, since all you're doing now is trying
ever-harder to find finer detail to try to distinguish what you're doing
here in this thread from the very thing you complain about me doing.
You're now going round in ever-decreasing circles, so I'll save you
before you disappear altogether.

But just to emphasise the gross inaccuracies of *your* current rant,
Google Groups reports 13 hits for threads containing my posts and MS
bash/basher references since Jan 2003. How on Earth you equate this with
your "almost daily" and "littered all over the newsgroup" fantasies is
beyond me. Like everything else you've said here, you offer no evidence
in support of your statements, then choose to snip my request for same
from your reply... because you can't back it up because you just
fabricated it. Your credibility on this whole issue is correspondingly
very low. This being the usenet, that hardly matters, but I'd suggest
you address your approach wrt more important ventures, lest it be to
your detriment, if it hasn't been already.

I see that the latent troll Semolina Pilchard has belatedly joined the
thread, no doubt to add another worthless 2¢ after the event. I won't
bother reading its ad hom, but its appearance is always a definite
indicator that all contributions of any use have been fully expired. The
thread is therefore well & truly over now, for my part.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Google Groups reports 13 hits for threads containing my posts and MS
bash/basher references since Jan 2003.

< snip >

Did you look for variations on your "theme" such as "IE bash rubbish",
"OE basher" etc. ?

I guess you didn't.

I suggest you search properly. A search of

From: Alan <[email protected]> and {bash} and {ms}

from my archive gives 54 hits in the above period. That is EXCLUDING
anything since 26/7.

That would mean that, on average, you give your MS basher rant (or a
variation of it) in one form or another, every single week.


Regards, John.