Decompiler.NET reverse engineers your CLS compliant code

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Also, I have posted a complaint to (e-mail address removed), if that's the
correct address. Apparently these groups are moderated by MVP's, so
if any of them were half decent they would have that post removed for
me. And believe me, I would be greatly appreciative, I would never go
on a mission to do that to anyone else, why do that to me? Pah, very
sad! Anyways.

This group is effectively unmoderated - it's certainly not moderated by
MVPs. If a particular post warrants removal, I believe anyone can make
a complaint. (It may be dealt with more swiftly if the person
complaining is an MVP, but that's about it.)

Daniel wasn't moderating the group - he was expressing his opinions
about some posts, as have other people on the thread.

 

[CJ Taylor]

Jonathan,

CJ,

I feel that Daniel was completely justified in his attempts to moderate this
forum in attempts to keep the discussion technical in nature and to point
out his observations regarding inappropriate, inaccurate, and often
harassing posts.

He's not a moderator... As for inaccurate? There are several messages on
here from several reputable sources that state your software didn't
decompile things 100%. In fact many stating you can't.

I don't know whether Daniel was referring to the harassment of the post
authors he mentioned with regard to the original post author or to myself,
but I personally felt harrassed and was forced to respond to inaccurate
accusations about our companues products to defend our companies reputation.
I would much prefer to spend my time answering technical questions relevant
to the topic of decompilation, obfuscation, and refactoring being discussed
in this thread.

Welcome to being a president Jon. Did you expect it to be all flowers and
fun trips?

There are many times I would like to spend my time doing what I want to..
but its just not in the cards.

There were many posts in this thread mainly from the users that Daniel
mentioned that were antagonistic, and made inaccurate claims about our
product and company ranging from statements regarding having illegally
decompiled our source code,

Illegally decompiling your source code? You wrote a decompiler... It's like
the old warez statement of "You can use it, but only for 24 hours". You
gave the tool, but expect it not to be used on yourself? what better
test...

to threats about posting it publicly, to
accusations that we did not author our own code or give proper credit to the
3rd party libraries that we legally licensed and credit in our About Box.

2 things.. if your obfusicator works so well... non issue... I don't
remember too many comments about not using your own code, I just remember
comments of saying your own code doesn't work. Sorry, but if people say it
doesn't work... well it doesn't work... Feel lucky it's here and not a
major client.

I appreciate your apology earlier but now you are reverting to a similar
style of defensive behavior that Daniel has taken his time to point out.

I was defending accusations that daniel made agasint me. Should I just grab
my ankles and take it from him?

I'd personally like to stop having to waste my time defending our company

Mmm.. again.. your a president... that's your job... accept it or get a new
one.

against inaccurate knowingly false malicious accusations about our product
and inaccurate vague assumptions that and statements that are libelous in
nature and directly harm us financially.

How false they are. I don't know. But if people are saying they used your
product, and it didn't work, thats not exactly false. That article which
you refer to has comments posted by users stating the bias of the article as
well as the fact your software didn't work. Cmon man? This many people are
wrong?

It would be nice to be able to keep
these discussions technical in nature with an even tone but I've found that
aside from responding to posts asking their authors to back up their false
and derogatory statements, my only alternative will be to pursue legal
resources to recover damages made to our company and it's reputation.

You go for that... Because *that* would be a good administrative decision.
go sue a bunch of people, spend thousands in legal costs to get back....
what?

I applaud Daniel 100% for his actions here, and would like to see more MVP's
become more vocal in moderating these forums. I also think that these
technical newsgroups should be restricted to not accept anonymous or spoofed
messages or at mininum, flag them as not credible posts.

hmmm... well, I think you and Vortex need to keep reading up on "How things
work". After all... thats what news groups are.. anonymous messages...

While your at it, why don't you rewrite the SMTP protocal along with NNTP so
it works how you want it to... After all, everyone else thinks you did a
bang up job on your Decompiler/Obfusicator

 

[Frans Bouma [C# MVP]]

The MVP comments are regarding MVP's coming in and trying to be big brother
to everyone and tell us how to act, speak, and think. You can use your
*lazy* tactics to scan the groups and see that.

No offence, but you are not the newsgroup god either to tell other people
how to act or what they should or shouldn't do, however you try to do exactly
that. If you are so bitter about someone having an MVP title, that's your
problem, not anyone elses. Please keep the MVP title out of your discussion
tactics.

Frans.

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

CJ,

There are several messages on

here from several reputable sources that state your software didn't
decompile things 100%. In fact many stating you can't.

I haven't seen any such statements in this thread or otherwise aside from
the non-credible harassing ones.

I have not seen any posts in this or other threads consistent with what you
are claiming about anyone having any problems decompiling code with our
product. The only mention was a positive one made by William Stacey
indicating that he was impressed by the work that went into the product
after being able to partially decompile an assembly obfuscated with control
flow obfuscation by XenoCode. We never claimed that our product supported
handling all of the tricks inserted by obfuscators to foil decompilers.
Other than that, I've seen no posts regarding any bugs in our product or
problems that users had using it to compile or run their assemblies
correctly. The only claims that I have seen have been unsubstatiated
harassment oriented claims whose authors later backed down and confirmed
that they in fact either never tried the product, or just made assumptions
about what they would expect based on their experience with other products.
I've constantly requested that any users that experience any problems post
reproduceable concrete examples and that I would address them immediately.
The reality is that we have no outstanding bugs, our product works 100% as
claimed, and the independant users who actually have tried it have given it
rave reviews both in the press and statements made by our extremly happy
customers. We've also provided free consulting to our customers to assist
them with the projects for which they were using our products to assist
them.

As far as our competitors tools are concerned, we have gone to considerable
length to assist them by isolating bugs in their tools that we discovered,
and sending them reproduceable examples and correct code solutions. I've
personally reported more than 10 bugs to Reflector's author and had numerous
correspondences with him assisting him by providing reproduceable code
samples that illustrate the bugs that I've identified for him, and testing
his intermediate versions for him to confirm that he has successfully
addressed them before he releases the version publicly. I've also given
similar feedback to the Borland regarding Spices.NET along with a
complimentary copy of my product so they could do code generation and
feature comparison.

Illegally decompiling your source code? You wrote a decompiler... It's
like
the old warez statement of "You can use it, but only for 24 hours". You
gave the tool, but expect it not to be used on yourself? what better
test...

We use our own decompiler on itself to produce each build that we ship by
decompiling it with our obfuscation feature, recomping it, and shipping the
recompiled version. You are correct that this does provide a very good test
of whether it is working well since the build is produced by correctly
decompiled obfuscated code from the same version each time we ship.

Nonetheless, our EULA does prohibit end users from attempting to decompile
it with our decompiler or anyone elses. We also taken several steps to
prevent this by disabling it from acting on our own assemblies, obfuscating
our own code, and encrypting our obfuscated assembly and embedding it within
another obfuscated loader assembly. Besides these deterrents, we are
prepared to utilize our legal counsel if necessary to enforce the agreement
against users who attempt to crack or distribute unlicensed versions of our
products.

2 things.. if your obfusicator works so well... non issue... I don't
remember too many comments about not using your own code, I just remember
comments of saying your own code doesn't work. Sorry, but if people say
it
doesn't work... well it doesn't work... Feel lucky it's here and not a
major client.

Noone credible has made such statements. The only statements made about our
product not working were by users like Nak who later admitted that they
never even downloaded our product and that their statements were knowingly
false and malicious attempts to distort readers impressions of our products
and discredit our reputation.
If you can identify any such posts, please let me know and I'll be glad to
clear up the misunderstanding and the misrepresentation being propagated
here.

Since noone actually made such claims aside from antagonistic
non-reproduceable knowingly false statements intended to falsely discredit
our product, there is no way such claims could be made by a major client.
The reality is that our product does really work 100%, we use it ourselves
on every release, and all of our customers are extremely happy with their
experience with it and appreciate it fully. If any customer did encounter
any problem, they would still be satisfied by the immediate response that
our support provides. Our customers have actually apologized to us for
reporting non-issues and feeling guilty for wasting our time and the speed
at which we responded to them addressing their questions.

How false they are. I don't know. But if people are saying they used
your
product, and it didn't work, thats not exactly false. That article which
you refer to has comments posted by users stating the bias of the article
as
well as the fact your software didn't work. Cmon man? This many people
are
wrong?

Again, there have been no such statements made in this thread or in the
feedback from the article that you are referring to. All of the claims in
the discussion response to the article were focused around defending
Reflector against accurate reproduceable bugs identified by the author's
article. All of the negative criticism was also made by anonymous posters
possibly the same person who made general statements about Reflector being
good enough to meet his needs. I have not seen any claims that anyone had
problems using our product including the author of the article and the
anonymous user who criticized the author's conclusions. As far as bias goes,
I already explained that I had no relationship with the author aside from
granting him permission to review our product, and providing updated public
releases to address any issues identified by ourselves, our customers, or
the author. Not only did the author provide the same opportunities to the
other vendors that he reviewed, but I personally sent nearly 20 bug reports
to each of my competitors starting as early as 04/2004 six months before the
article was published. The author chose his own examples in attempts to find
unusual constructs that woudl foil all of the products including ours,
requested support from all of the vendors involved, and formed his own
conclusions based on his own experiences using each of the products that he
tested from an unbiased perspective. Obviously, after finishing his testing,
his experience varied and he formed opinions as to which product best met
his needs and shared them in his conclusions. This is the entire point of
doing the review in the first place.

You go for that... Because *that* would be a good administrative
decision.
go sue a bunch of people, spend thousands in legal costs to get back....
what?

It's difficult to measure the amount of potential lost revenue that might be
caused by knowingly false libelous statements being made about us, but
clearly anyone attempting to crack or distribute unlicensed copies of our
product would merit us investigating the source thoroughly and enforcing our
claims to the legal extent available to us.

While your at it, why don't you rewrite the SMTP protocal along with NNTP
so
it works how you want it to... After all, everyone else thinks you did a
bang up job on your Decompiler/Obfusicator

There are moderated groups where all messages are reviewed before being
forwarded to the actual public group.At a minimum, messages from invalid
email hosts could be automatically rejected by an automated proxy.

Jonathan

 

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

Learn to read you ignomious buffoon. What I am saying, although I doubt
you'll understand this any better than anything else you've replied to on
this thread, is that because I *AM* an MVP, you are acting like a crabby
little peasent who's been stepped on by some Chaldean god. Thus, the bind.
Any comment I make is usually automatically either instantly accepted or
instantly rejected based on title alone. You've certainly shown that here. I
suppose you could call it a race card, but it is certainly not one I play.
All discrimination is your's alone. I do not hide my MVP status from anyone
on appropriate forums.

Your arrogant behavior, your posturing, your disregard for courtesy all seem
to stem from my title. So, the conclusion I draw is that, by me being an
MVP, you don't feel my particular opinoin has any merit. You three were
being, and some of you continue to be, I might add, little children running
around ranting and raving about things you either don't understand or plain
don't care enough about to apply any knowledge you actually have. That is
all there is too it. I don't particularly care if no one else shares my
opinion, but as far as I can tell thats how things have gone. Your behavior
since my original post certainly hasn't suggested otherwise to me.

I will treat you badly, for the moment anyway. You certainly don't deserve
anything better. You're participation in this thread, to a lesser degree
than others granted, has been primarily distasteful, if not downright
disgusting.

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

That article which

you refer to has comments ... as the fact your software didn't work.

CJ,

I went back and confirmed that this statement is entirely untrue. I reread
all of the comments on the discussion forum about the August 2004 article,
and reread the published version of the comments from the September 2004
issue and confirmed that there were absolutely no comments made by anyone,
anonymous or not, related to problems using Decompiler.NET to decompile and
run there code 100% correctly. I would appreciate it if you would do the
same so that you can confirm for yourself that my claims here have always
been accurate and that what you thought you remembered was actually not
true. The only comments mentioning bugs in the article feedback discussion
were made by me about bugs that still exist in the competor's tools. The
rest of the discussion was related to incorrect presumptions that the
article's author was biased prior to his evaluation, and my responses to
those claims suggesting that customers download all of the products
themselves and personally confirm the conclusions made by the author of the
article. All of the discussion comments were published by the magazine
editor in the September, 2004 issue, and I have made the article available
on my web site so that you can confirm the assertions that I have made here
and elsewhere in this and other threads.

http://www.junglecreatures.com/press/DecompilerDebate.pdf

Jonathan Pierce
President
Jungle Creatures, Inc.
http://www.junglecreatures,com/

CJ,

There are several messages on

here from several reputable sources that state your software didn't
decompile things 100%. In fact many stating you can't.

I haven't seen any such statements in this thread or otherwise aside from
the non-credible harassing ones.

I have not seen any posts in this or other threads consistent with what
you are claiming about anyone having any problems decompiling code with
our product. The only mention was a positive one made by William Stacey
indicating that he was impressed by the work that went into the product
after being able to partially decompile an assembly obfuscated with
control flow obfuscation by XenoCode. We never claimed that our product
supported handling all of the tricks inserted by obfuscators to foil
decompilers. Other than that, I've seen no posts regarding any bugs in our
product or problems that users had using it to compile or run their
assemblies correctly. The only claims that I have seen have been
unsubstatiated harassment oriented claims whose authors later backed down
and confirmed that they in fact either never tried the product, or just
made assumptions about what they would expect based on their experience
with other products. I've constantly requested that any users that
experience any problems post reproduceable concrete examples and that I
would address them immediately. The reality is that we have no outstanding
bugs, our product works 100% as claimed, and the independant users who
actually have tried it have given it rave reviews both in the press and
statements made by our extremly happy customers. We've also provided free
consulting to our customers to assist them with the projects for which
they were using our products to assist them.

As far as our competitors tools are concerned, we have gone to
considerable length to assist them by isolating bugs in their tools that
we discovered, and sending them reproduceable examples and correct code
solutions. I've personally reported more than 10 bugs to Reflector's
author and had numerous correspondences with him assisting him by
providing reproduceable code samples that illustrate the bugs that I've
identified for him, and testing his intermediate versions for him to
confirm that he has successfully addressed them before he releases the
version publicly. I've also given similar feedback to the Borland
regarding Spices.NET along with a complimentary copy of my product so they
could do code generation and feature comparison.

Illegally decompiling your source code? You wrote a decompiler... It's
like
the old warez statement of "You can use it, but only for 24 hours". You
gave the tool, but expect it not to be used on yourself? what better
test...

We use our own decompiler on itself to produce each build that we ship by
decompiling it with our obfuscation feature, recomping it, and shipping
the recompiled version. You are correct that this does provide a very good
test of whether it is working well since the build is produced by
correctly decompiled obfuscated code from the same version each time we
ship.

Nonetheless, our EULA does prohibit end users from attempting to decompile
it with our decompiler or anyone elses. We also taken several steps to
prevent this by disabling it from acting on our own assemblies,
obfuscating our own code, and encrypting our obfuscated assembly and
embedding it within another obfuscated loader assembly. Besides these
deterrents, we are prepared to utilize our legal counsel if necessary to
enforce the agreement against users who attempt to crack or distribute
unlicensed versions of our products.

2 things.. if your obfusicator works so well... non issue... I don't
remember too many comments about not using your own code, I just remember
comments of saying your own code doesn't work. Sorry, but if people say
it
doesn't work... well it doesn't work... Feel lucky it's here and not a
major client.

Noone credible has made such statements. The only statements made about
our product not working were by users like Nak who later admitted that
they never even downloaded our product and that their statements were
knowingly false and malicious attempts to distort readers impressions of
our products and discredit our reputation.
If you can identify any such posts, please let me know and I'll be glad to
clear up the misunderstanding and the misrepresentation being propagated
here.

Since noone actually made such claims aside from antagonistic
non-reproduceable knowingly false statements intended to falsely discredit
our product, there is no way such claims could be made by a major client.
The reality is that our product does really work 100%, we use it ourselves
on every release, and all of our customers are extremely happy with their
experience with it and appreciate it fully. If any customer did encounter
any problem, they would still be satisfied by the immediate response that
our support provides. Our customers have actually apologized to us for
reporting non-issues and feeling guilty for wasting our time and the speed
at which we responded to them addressing their questions.

How false they are. I don't know. But if people are saying they used
your
product, and it didn't work, thats not exactly false. That article
which
you refer to has comments posted by users stating the bias of the article
as
well as the fact your software didn't work. Cmon man? This many people
are
wrong?

Again, there have been no such statements made in this thread or in the
feedback from the article that you are referring to. All of the claims in
the discussion response to the article were focused around defending
Reflector against accurate reproduceable bugs identified by the author's
article. All of the negative criticism was also made by anonymous posters
possibly the same person who made general statements about Reflector being
good enough to meet his needs. I have not seen any claims that anyone had
problems using our product including the author of the article and the
anonymous user who criticized the author's conclusions. As far as bias
goes, I already explained that I had no relationship with the author aside
from granting him permission to review our product, and providing updated
public releases to address any issues identified by ourselves, our
customers, or the author. Not only did the author provide the same
opportunities to the other vendors that he reviewed, but I personally sent
nearly 20 bug reports to each of my competitors starting as early as
04/2004 six months before the article was published. The author chose his
own examples in attempts to find unusual constructs that woudl foil all of
the products including ours, requested support from all of the vendors
involved, and formed his own conclusions based on his own experiences
using each of the products that he tested from an unbiased perspective.
Obviously, after finishing his testing, his experience varied and he
formed opinions as to which product best met his needs and shared them in
his conclusions. This is the entire point of doing the review in the first
place.

You go for that... Because *that* would be a good administrative
decision.
go sue a bunch of people, spend thousands in legal costs to get back....
what?

It's difficult to measure the amount of potential lost revenue that might
be caused by knowingly false libelous statements being made about us, but
clearly anyone attempting to crack or distribute unlicensed copies of our
product would merit us investigating the source thoroughly and enforcing
our claims to the legal extent available to us.

While your at it, why don't you rewrite the SMTP protocal along with NNTP
so
it works how you want it to... After all, everyone else thinks you did a
bang up job on your Decompiler/Obfusicator

There are moderated groups where all messages are reviewed before being
forwarded to the actual public group.At a minimum, messages from invalid
email hosts could be automatically rejected by an automated proxy.

Jonathan

Jonathan,

CJ,

I feel that Daniel was completely justified in his attempts to moderate this
forum in attempts to keep the discussion technical in nature and to
point
out his observations regarding inappropriate, inaccurate, and often
harassing posts.

He's not a moderator... As for inaccurate? >

What harrasement? The fact we had to tell the OP over and over that
he
was
wrong and WHY he was wrong? I don't see that as harrassment. I don't
think
many others do either.

I don't know whether Daniel was referring to the harassment of the post
authors he mentioned with regard to the original post author or to
myself,
but I personally felt harrassed and was forced to respond to inaccurate
accusations about our companues products to defend our companies reputation.
I would much prefer to spend my time answering technical questions relevant
to the topic of decompilation, obfuscation, and refactoring being discussed
in this thread.

Welcome to being a president Jon. Did you expect it to be all flowers
and
fun trips?

There are many times I would like to spend my time doing what I want to..
but its just not in the cards.

There were many posts in this thread mainly from the users that Daniel
mentioned that were antagonistic, and made inaccurate claims about our
product and company ranging from statements regarding having illegally
decompiled our source code,

Illegally decompiling your source code? You wrote a decompiler... It's
like
the old warez statement of "You can use it, but only for 24 hours". You
gave the tool, but expect it not to be used on yourself? what better
test...

to threats about posting it publicly, to
accusations that we did not author our own code or give proper credit to the
3rd party libraries that we legally licensed and credit in our About
Box.

2 things.. if your obfusicator works so well... non issue... I don't
remember too many comments about not using your own code, I just remember
comments of saying your own code doesn't work. Sorry, but if people say
it
doesn't work... well it doesn't work... Feel lucky it's here and not a
major client.

I appreciate your apology earlier but now you are reverting to a similar
style of defensive behavior that Daniel has taken his time to point out.

I was defending accusations that daniel made agasint me. Should I just
grab
my ankles and take it from him?

I'd personally like to stop having to waste my time defending our
company

Mmm.. again.. your a president... that's your job... accept it or get a
new
one.

against inaccurate knowingly false malicious accusations about our
product
and inaccurate vague assumptions that and statements that are libelous
in
nature and directly harm us financially.

How false they are. I don't know. But if people are saying they used
your
product, and it didn't work, thats not exactly false. That article
which
you refer to has comments posted by users stating the bias of the article
as
well as the fact your software didn't work. Cmon man? This many people
are
wrong?

It would be nice to be able to keep
these discussions technical in nature with an even tone but I've found that
aside from responding to posts asking their authors to back up their
false
and derogatory statements, my only alternative will be to pursue legal
resources to recover damages made to our company and it's reputation.

You go for that... Because *that* would be a good administrative
decision.
go sue a bunch of people, spend thousands in legal costs to get back....
what?

I applaud Daniel 100% for his actions here, and would like to see more MVP's
become more vocal in moderating these forums. I also think that these
technical newsgroups should be restricted to not accept anonymous or spoofed
messages or at mininum, flag them as not credible posts.

hmmm... well, I think you and Vortex need to keep reading up on "How
things
work". After all... thats what news groups are.. anonymous messages...

While your at it, why don't you rewrite the SMTP protocal along with NNTP
so
it works how you want it to... After all, everyone else thinks you did a
bang up job on your Decompiler/Obfusicator

Jonathan


"CJ Taylor" <[cege] at [tavayn] dit commmmm> wrote in message

Out of curiosity, if I had posted my original reply *without* the mvp
marker, would you all have been as assinine?


Your comment is assinine. If you didn't have the MVP title, would I have
made any comments regarding it? No. But you are and you did post
with
it.

The MVP comments are regarding MVP's coming in and trying to be big
brother
to everyone and tell us how to act, speak, and think. You can use
your
*lazy* tactics
to scan the groups and see that.

I try to kep the mvp label *out* of what I do, and I know several
mvp's
who
don't mark themselves as one because, although everyone try's to pass it
off
as unimportant, the level of disrespect you can get from having the label
tends to equal the level of respect it returns. Its annoying.

Being an MVP can be binding. I would have certainly berated the three of
you, MVP or not, however by being one the results are just fussing about
the
title and an utter disregard for the lot of you acting like children.


Wow. Your thoughts are just everywhere on this one. Being an MVP can be
binding, yet you would have berated us MVP or not. So is that the binding
part of the MVP? What's holding you back?

So your saying you don't get the repect your deserve as an MVP? And
because
of that you keep your MVP title away... *sometimes*. What determines
when
to use it and when not to? Is this like a race card?

if you don't want to be an MVP, don't be one. Your not being paid
after
all. I don't care if I ever become an MVP or not, especially if it means
I
have to be careful not to hurt anyone's feelings. I come on here to
get/give advice, not to achieve some flashy title to make myself feel
good.

This thread is stupid, I'll leave it at that.

Because you said it was? If you read the thread you would notice we
are
all
agreeing with that. However, the OP pursued the conversation
insisiting
that Microsoft withheld information. After many of us (myself
included)
explained we already knew.

The consistent harrassment of
someone on the forum is disappointing, and should *never* have been
started.

What harrasement? The fact we had to tell the OP over and over that
he
was
wrong and WHY he was wrong? I don't see that as harrassment. I don't
think
many others do either.

However, if you want to start a flame war, or participate in one, expect
to
be treated badly as a result.


Where do you see the flame war? The point was, he was wrong. And as for
Jonathan, people in here debunked his own claims he made about his
decompiler/obfuscator. Are we not to do that? Just take whatever anyone
says about there software as truth?

So your going to treat me badly now? A little hypocritcal I would
say.

Also, for the record, MVP's have no capacity to moderate these
newsgroups.
Moderation of newsgroups is nearly impossible to begin with, but the
microsoft news server is administered and maintained by someone
within
microsoft.


I didn't say MVP's did. I said you act like you are moderators...read
more
carefully.

If you dig through blogs.msdn.com, someone there is the admin(or part of
the
team), I just forget who.

BTW,

I made one off color remark. If you look through my posts I am either
talking to other people, or attempting to explain that we all knew and
compare it to something like RSA.

So the next time you decide to whip out your MVP lapel pin and ID badge
make
sure your clear on how many off color comments I make.

Perhaps I jumped to your name a bit, still, you certainly didn't make
*ONE*
off color comment, I was able to find two by being lazy and using
what
was
still visible in my reader window.



2 huh. Well, must have missed on. Among all the other comments I
made
trying to explain the point.. Well, judge me however you want. Maybe one
day this news group will be exactly the way *you* want it...

 

[CJ Taylor]

Learn to read you ignomious buffoon.

Mmm.. show me one post that I insult you directly... And what the hell is
ignomious? I'll admit, I looked it up... hmmm websters dictionary doesn't
have a definition for that, nor anything close. Where you trying to say
ignoramus?

What I am saying, although I doubt
you'll understand this any better than anything else you've replied to on
this thread, is that because I *AM* an MVP, you are acting like a crabby
little peasent who's been stepped on by some Chaldean god.
Thus, the bind.

Again... I didn't start the MVP discussion, Nak [one of them] did. I simply
agreed. As for understand anything else? What else is there to understand,
your thoughts meander like a lost child in the woods...I'm well aware you're
an MVP as you have stated so many times. Were peasents crabby in Babylon
when stepped on by mythic figures? I don't know... I still don't see how
this creates a bind. Or for that matter, how your "bound" by it, since
after all, your first words were to call me a buffoon. Way to hold back.

Any comment I make is usually automatically either instantly accepted or
instantly rejected based on title alone.

It's a comment.. how can it be rejected or accepted? I don't see that
happen with other MVP's.. I don't judge your response if your an MVP or
not. Nor have I yet, or else I would have made more comments about it.
You seem to want to rely on the MVP card. I let that go awhile ago, you
just keep bringing it up over and over..

You've certainly shown that here. I
suppose you could call it a race card, but it is certainly not one I play.
All discrimination is your's alone. I do not hide my MVP status from anyone
on appropriate forums.

You JUST SAID YOU DO! So which is it? Man, I can understand where W. is
coming from now.

I try to kep the mvp label *out* of what I do, and I know several mvp's
who
don't mark themselves as one because, although everyone try's to pass it
off
as unimportant, the level of disrespect you can get from having the label
tends to equal the level of respect it returns. Its annoying.

Your arrogant behavior, your posturing, your disregard for courtesy all seem
to stem from my title. So, the conclusion I draw is that, by me being an
MVP, you don't feel my particular opinoin has any merit.

My behavior was arrogant long before you jumped into the conversation. You
just decided to slide on in here and start talking about bad behavior and
with this little gem:

While I appreciate that you are rather fervent about this, you are really
starting to push the point here. Up to this point I have seen no behaviour
by Jungle Creatures outside of supporting their product(and suggesting it
when people ask about decompilers).

Last I checked, this forum was for Microsoft .NET, not promotions. So
earlier you agreed with this comment, that is a forum for supporitng the
framework.. I don't see where thats a forum for supporting Jungle Creatures
Product.

No one asked about decompilers... the OP starts off with a web link to
jungle creatures, and tries to give many of us advice on how Microsoft is
hosing is... There was no *asking*. There was just telling...

You have any more fun *facts* you want to support your weak a$$ argument
with? Oh, and I use the term weak a$$ because your an MVP, not because you
can't carry on a debate.

You three were
being, and some of you continue to be, I might add, little children running
around ranting and raving about things you either don't understand or plain
don't care enough about to apply any knowledge you actually have.

Don't understand??????? I think that was the whole point of my argument!
Terry can back that up. We were discussing what was acceptable risk, which
is the whole reason behind obfusicators in the first place. Same with
Encryption. Which is why I brought up RSA first! Did you even READ the
thread? If that isn't application of knowledge towards a subject then I've
been doing something wrong.

My knowledge was knowing that it could be decompiled, I stated that. I
stated why. i stated other examples of other languages that ran into the
same thing. I stated other subjects and used them to compare so the author
could understand. And I am fully prepared to back that up.

I posted :

No.. it has nothing to do with being more careful. But you think you've
come across this amazing revalation that none of us knew about.

Microsoft told us of the "security concerns" of reverse engineering with
.NET all the way back in Beta 2 days...

Sun did the same thing with Java.

And many many more companies that developed compilers.

Don't make such a big deal about it. If you continue to read about .NET
you'll learn there are many tools. Don't forget, nothing will every protect
everything 100%, that's just how life is.

------------

Us means who? You and who else? Microsoft did not told me about that...

And I have to insist, why doesn't the CLS compiler work the same way as
the old C or ASM (machine language using mnemonics) compiler: Exported
Symbols are visible, non Exported Symbols are not accessible???
Why does an .exe file contain ALL original Symbols?????

Sun did the same thing with Java.

And many many more companies that developed compilers.

Don't make such a big deal about it. If you continue to read about .NET
you'll learn there are many tools. Don't forget, nothing will every protect
everything 100%, that's just how life is.

How much should I spend in addons to be able to produce a comercial
software?
And the enums can't be changed!!!


------
This was ignored! And compared to a C / ASM complier! Which if you knew
anything about the language, ESPECIALLY if you are about to argue and
attempt to convince people of the dissassembly of the language, that you
would KNOW better than to compare it to C or Assembly... There isn't a
person in this forum today that is knowledgeable about languages and would
attempt to make the comparison. And you know that.

Why aren't they the same??? FOR THAT VERY REASON. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
And we can go a lot further than that and talk till we are blue in the face
about the differences between C/ ASM/ .NET and the reasons for those
differences..

That's a senior f**kin' thesis right there...

And the OP CONTINUES to ignore it... Wants to debate. I'm feelin' a little
awnry, so I step into the ring as did many others including Nak and Brian
and whoever else. Because this just seems to be another wannabe troll and
it's a slow day at the office. Amusement? Sure a little, but if he's
really serious about it, I want him to convince me... So I'm going to state
my facts. It's not I'm not listening, but there isn't a lot of evidence to
support it. I could say that "salt is the elixer of life". What are you
going to do? Say "oh.. well yes, I suppose so." hell no, your going to
question me, as I'm going to question him.

And then you enter...

So don't tell me... I don't understand...

That is
all there is too it. I don't particularly care if no one else shares my
opinion, but as far as I can tell thats how things have gone. Your behavior
since my original post certainly hasn't suggested otherwise to me.

ha... see, you generalize. You think that I target this at you because
you're an MVP. No, I just don't agree with you as a person. You could be
the president of the United States and I would still disagree with you.

I will treat you badly, for the moment anyway. You certainly don't deserve
anything better.

So title doesn't dictate behavior is that right? Hmmm... guess it's not all
that "binding"

You're participation in this thread, to a lesser degree
than others granted, has been primarily distasteful, if not downright
disgusting.

ahh.. yes...

 

[Anon-E-Moose]

Every thing that can be encrypted can also be decrypted.

How about a 1-way hash like MD5 or SHA1?

 

[Steve McLellan]

Learn to read you ignomious buffoon. What I am saying, although I doubt

you'll understand this any better than anything else you've replied to on
this thread, is that because I *AM* an MVP, you are acting like a crabby
little peasent who's been stepped on by some Chaldean god.

I just wanted to say, regardless of context, this was a splendid and
magnificent wording. Bravo!

Steve

 

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

Mmm.. show me one post that I insult you directly... And what the hell
is
ignomious? I'll admit, I looked it up... hmmm websters dictionary doesn't
have a definition for that, nor anything close. Where you trying to say
ignoramus?

Ignominious, actually, I tend to mispronounce, and as a result misspell,
that particular word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=ignominious

 

[Nak]

Jesus H christ. Look if anyone has to admit to being out of order, I shall,
I appologise for saying your code was dirty. This was meant as an
assumption not a declaration of an observation. But anyway, whether you
belive me or not, the statement was meant to antagonize, I put my hand up
and appologise. I do on the other hand think it was exceedingly sly to post
my personal email address in this group, I would have given it freely if
anyone asked for it, but in a format that could not be read by a crawler.

Anyway, trust me, I have never decompiled anything, other than looking at my
own source in Reflector. I get a kick out of programming my own solutions,
not copying others. Anyway, I appologise for the remark I made, I'm sure
your product is fine, but still something I do not have the need for.

Anyway, I'm off of this, it's gone too far for me.

Nick.

 

[Nak]

Steve,

Now that just doesn't make sense. So many people saying stop arguing, you
all sound like children, and then you throw that one in. What is the point?
Let it all die down, the argument has gone off on a tangent. I have
admitted that I only reacted due to what I deemed as an advert, nothing
else, then I mistakingly made a poor assumption towards someone else's code,
which wasn't big and wasn't clever. And again I apologise, but what we
don't need is a seagull sitting on the sidelines cheering anyone on, because
it only stokes the fire.

Nick.

 

[Cor Ligthert]

Daniel,

I never had expected from you that you would use such words. In my culture
where are a lot of debats, it means that you lost the discussion.

Cor

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

Nick,

Thank you for recounting your statement that our code had issues and
implying that our product doesn't work as advertised. We have gone to
tremendous lengths to make sure that our product works completely for our
customers and antogonistic statements can sometimes have a detrimental
effect on our target market since some potential customers might read and
believe them rather than taking the time to confirm our claims and the
claims made by others that our product works extremely well.

Unfortunately, satisfied users are much less vocal in these forums than
those who tend to post malicious antagonistic claims to intentionally
disrupt the accurate perception of our products in the target market to
fulfill their own agendas.

Jonathan

 

[Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP]]

Daniel,


I never had expected from you that you would use such words. In my culture
where are a lot of debats, it means that you lost the discussion.

My tounge can be sharp, I suppose, although I considered these words to be
fairly light.

Anyway, this was never a debate, it was pretty much an escalating argument.
There really isn't a way to win, you just yell and posture till someone gets
fed up and gives up. I will grant I got fed up rapidly and gave up first,
but nothing more.

I will agree that my response in a debate of issues or even a dispute on
technical or philosophical opinion would certainly have been uncalled for
and would have shown that I was losing ground rapidly, but this had
degenerated into name calling a few steps back. And, honestly, I'm pretty
sure I started it.

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

this had degenerated into name calling a few steps back. And, honestly, I'm
pretty sure I started it.

Daniel,

You may have started it in the subthread, but you definitely didn't start
it. In earlier antogonistic posts in this thread by some of the users that
you mentioned, our product was referred to as "crap", "a$$ bandit", "twat",
etc.

We were also told many times to "shut the f*ck up!"

All MVPs were also referred to as "hackers" among other things.

You certainly didn't start the name calling and I'm sorry that you felt that
it was necessary to respond on the same level.

Jonathan

 

[CJ Taylor]

Wow...

You have derailed...

P.S.

You *really* need to learn what the term "hacker" means...

 

[Steve McLellan]

You're right, we don't need cheering. Not that it matters, but (<g>) I meant
it as a compliment on the phrasing - as a student of language, I appreciate
any use of language that really seems to roll off the tongue It
definitely is a time for us all to go and reflect, and I need some sleep
having been working for about 48 hours straight now

Let the slumbering hounds lie, I shall heed the call.

 

[Jonathan Pierce]

You *really* need to learn what the term "hacker" means...

I actually was around in the 80's when the "cracker" term was coined to
distinguish "crackers" from "hackers" but the term "hacker" can have either
a derogatory or complimentary meaning and in the context that it was used in
this thread, it was used in a derogatory way and later clarified by him to
say that he really meant "cracker". I didn't mean to imply that "hacker" was
always a derogatory term.

Nick wrote:

"Being more clear: is Microsoft ready to

 

[CJ Taylor]

I actually was around in the 80's when the "cracker" term was coined to
distinguish "crackers" from "hackers" but the term "hacker" can have either
a derogatory or complimentary meaning and in the context that it was used in
this thread, it was used in a derogatory way and later clarified by him to
say that he really meant "cracker". I didn't mean to imply that "hacker" was
always a derogatory term.

Nick wrote:

"Being more clear: is Microsoft ready to

And if by Nick you mean Vortex Soft.. then yes... he said that... It's only
derogatory by people that don't know how to use the word.

IT's all because of that stupid "hackers" movie...

And he never clarified it... I did...