I see most of you are running Ad Aware, which is good. Just thought I would let everyone know that Ad Aware does miss some things that need to be cleaned off your system. In addition to Ad Aware, you should be using Spybot Serach & Destroy. These two programs compliment each other well. Both of them find spyware that the other misses. The program is available free from
In news:RSSnc.51305$u snipped-for-privacy@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com, c from was injured because:
| I see most of you are running Ad Aware, which is good. Just | thought I would let everyone know that Ad Aware does miss some | things that need to be cleaned off your system. In addition to | Ad Aware, you should be using Spybot Serach & Destroy. These | two programs compliment each other well. Both of them find | spyware that the other misses. The program is available free | from
Yeahm yeah, we all use both...(I do anyway, Bill H. though, I am not so sure about....)
Actually the home page of Spybot is at Patrick's site at:
I'm pretty sure Bill has a picture of it though...
If you create an account without Administrative permission for everyday use, you'll eliminate 85 percent of this stuff--the other 15 percent is best practices.
I have never gotten any of this stuff on my PC and don't use such software.
Actually Daniel, since you are using Outlook Express, you do have spyware on your system since our friends at Microsoft have added a few registry keys to OE6. Same with Windows Media player if you use that. There are also tracking cookies from many websites. Ever use google? How about Ebay? It is impossible to know if you have spyware without using one of the detection programs.
Chris
LOL!
Do you want to scare yourself?
Just do a search for cookie*.* on your PC.
Then go get something to remove the ones you 'can't see....
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT'sDaniel Melameth wrote:
Cookies are a normal part of web browsing. If you don't want them, you can blocking them with Firefox and even IE.
Who are you talking to or what are you referring to?
It is a real pain to have to go and shuffle all the messages around to find out what you are referring to.
You have a 'lot' to learn about cookies. There is more to learn about the internet than just how to post a message and you haven't mastered that yet....
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT'sDaniel Melameth wrote:
Mike,
No offense, but you might want to learn how to thread newsgroup messages... Then you wouldn't have to waste bandwidth and storage space by uselessly quoting people...
I view messages by date/time posted, not by the thread. Viewing by thread takes 'way' too much time.
It 'is' proper newsgroup etiquette to give folks at least half a clue what you are talking about.
Useless stuff should be snipped agreed, but your last post right out of the blue made no sense at all if I just viewed it..
Now if you want replies in the context given by you, I will have some great fun with you... ;-)
Mike
Daniel Melameth wrote:
In news:inepc.9973$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net, Jo from was injured because:
| Yeah Mike... I like messages that don't reference anything... | they ar ethe way to go!! | | Daniel Melameth wrote: | || Mike, || || No offense, but you might want to learn how to thread || newsgroup messages... Then you wouldn't have to waste || bandwidth and storage space by uselessly quoting people...
Kids....
It's also proper newsgroup etiquette to not top-post... Personally I don't always agree with that and I know there are frequent holy wars waged over top vs bottom posting but the "general rule" is that top-posting is in bad form. Just figured I'd throw that in while we're in "lecture mode." :-)
But not required by RFC 1855.
Not required, true. But... search that rfc for "top" and you'll find under the general guidelines section:
- If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context...
If you summarize the original at the top then there is no way to top-post... So the general guideline is to NOT top-post. There is no arguing that point, and before you reply, keep in mind that it was you who brought up that rfc...
Which is why I said: "... I know there are frequent holy wars waged over top vs bottom posting but..."
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.