Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #182969 > unrolled thread

You can protect your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!

Started by	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
First post	2026-03-04 12:46 +0000
Last post	2026-04-12 03:25 +0000
Articles	20 on this page of 181 — 10 participants

Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac

Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →

#183482

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-05-13 23:47 +0000
Message-ID	<6a050d9a$0$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183479

On May 13, 2026 at 1:12:57 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n6k4a9F3m9oU1@mid.individual.net>:

> On 13/05/2026 18:54, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 13, 2026 at 10:47:09 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>> <n6jrotF2dlkU1@mid.individual.net>:
>> 
>>> On 13/05/2026 18:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> [....]
>>>>>> I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he
>>>>>> attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
>>>>>> likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal
>>>>>> issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
>>>>>> on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
>>>>>> People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely
>>>>>> shared her last name but have no relation to me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
>>>>>> but not himself.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whilst you are here, Brock ......
>>>>> 
>>>>> Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
>>>>> 
>>>>> If so, did you save the report?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Only the times we’ve talked about. Don’t know if I have any reports now.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
>> 
>> I have had EasyFind for years.
> 
> Great! 😄. Did it find EtreCheck?

Did not look. As we have discussed, I have no interest in helping you with
your focus on that software. It is harmful to you and others and not healthy.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183486

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-05-14 13:26 +0100
Message-ID	<n6ltaoFc880U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183482

On 14/05/2026 00:47, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 13, 2026 at 1:12:57 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
[....]
>>>>>> Whilst you are here, Brock ......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, did you save the report?
>>>>>
>>>>> Only the times we’ve talked about. Don’t know if I have any reports now.
>>>>
>>>> Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
>>>
>>> I have had EasyFind for years.
>>
>> Great! 😄. Did it find EtreCheck?
> 
> Did not look. 

A fine friend YOU turned out to be!!!!  🙄
> As we have discussed, I have no interest in helping you with
> your focus on that software. *It is harmful* to you and others []
What makes *YOU* think that EtreCheck is harmful?

I am seeking to confirm that it is NOT harmful.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183487

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-05-14 13:46 +0000
Message-ID	<6a05d21d$6$27$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183486

On May 14, 2026 at 5:26:00 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n6ltaoFc880U1@mid.individual.net>:

> On 14/05/2026 00:47, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 13, 2026 at 1:12:57 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
> [....]
>>>>>>> Whilst you are here, Brock ......
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If so, did you save the report?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Only the times we’ve talked about. Don’t know if I have any reports now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
>>>> 
>>>> I have had EasyFind for years.
>>> 
>>> Great! 😄. Did it find EtreCheck?
>> 
>> Did not look.
> 
> A fine friend YOU turned out to be!!!!  🙄

A good friend is willing to tell you when you are wrong.

>> As we have discussed, I have no interest in helping you with
>> your focus on that software. *It is harmful* to you and others []

> What makes *YOU* think that EtreCheck is harmful?

It is not. Your behavior is -- to yourself and others.
> 
> I am seeking to confirm that it is NOT harmful.

That is not an honest statement. You push the idea it is harmful, and you do
so with no evidence. You harm yourself, the developer, and possibly others
seeking to use the product.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183489

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-05-14 16:34 +0100
Message-ID	<n6m8bnFdunvU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183487

On 14/05/2026 14:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 14, 2026 at 5:26:00 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
> <n6ltaoFc880U1@mid.individual.net>:
> 
>> On 14/05/2026 00:47, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 13, 2026 at 1:12:57 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>> [....]
>>>>>>>> Whilst you are here, Brock ......
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If so, did you save the report?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only the times we’ve talked about. Don’t know if I have any reports now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have had EasyFind for years.
>>>>
>>>> Great! 😄. Did it find EtreCheck?
>>>
>>> Did not look.
>>
>> A fine friend YOU turned out to be!!!!  🙄
> 
> A good friend is willing to tell you when you are wrong.

What is wrong with looking for a file using EasyFind?
>>> As we have discussed, I have no interest in helping you with
>>> your focus on that software. *It is harmful* to you and others []
> 
>> What makes *YOU* think that EtreCheck is harmful?
> 
> It is not. Your behavior is -- to yourself and others.

I apologise for teasing you! ;-)
>> I am seeking to confirm that it is NOT harmful.
> 
> That is not an honest statement. You push the idea it is harmful, and you do
> so with no evidence. You harm yourself, the developer, and possibly others
> seeking to use the product.

Have you watched this verification YouTube video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkl9EtbdBkc

The only real change is that EtreCheck is *NOT* available from the Apple 
App Store. However, the developer now has another product in the store 
which helps to justify his credibility.

-- 
Kind regards,
David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183491

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-05-14 16:32 +0000
Message-ID	<6a05f900$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183489

On May 14, 2026 at 8:34:15 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n6m8bnFdunvU1@mid.individual.net>:

> On 14/05/2026 14:46, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 14, 2026 at 5:26:00 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>> <n6ltaoFc880U1@mid.individual.net>:
>> 
>>> On 14/05/2026 00:47, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On May 13, 2026 at 1:12:57 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>> [....]
>>>>>>>>> Whilst you are here, Brock ......
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If so, did you save the report?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Only the times we’ve talked about. Don’t know if I have any reports now.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have had EasyFind for years.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Great! 😄. Did it find EtreCheck?
>>>> 
>>>> Did not look.
>>> 
>>> A fine friend YOU turned out to be!!!!  🙄
>> 
>> A good friend is willing to tell you when you are wrong.
> 
> What is wrong with looking for a file using EasyFind?

Nothing. It is not wrong. YOU are for continuing to obsess over EtreCheck. I
say this as a friend -- talk to a counselor, clergy, SOMEONE about your
obsession here. It is causing you and others harm. You have had this issue for
years and it is not getting better. If it was just a hobby that would be fine,
but you harm the developer.

>>>> As we have discussed, I have no interest in helping you with
>>>> your focus on that software. *It is harmful* to you and others []
>> 
>>> What makes *YOU* think that EtreCheck is harmful?
>> 
>> It is not. Your behavior is -- to yourself and others.
> 
> I apologise for teasing you! ;-)

Oh, that I have no issue with.

>>> I am seeking to confirm that it is NOT harmful.
>> 
>> That is not an honest statement. You push the idea it is harmful, and you do
>> so with no evidence. You harm yourself, the developer, and possibly others
>> seeking to use the product.
> 
> Have you watched this verification YouTube video?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkl9EtbdBkc
> 
> The only real change is that EtreCheck is *NOT* available from the Apple
> App Store. However, the developer now has another product in the store
> which helps to justify his credibility.

Please stop focusing on EtreCheck. It is not healthy for you. You keep this
focus and you make bizarre claims like him having another product justifies
his credibility, as if he owes you any justification for having a well
respected product in the first place.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183480

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-05-13 22:04 +0100
Message-ID	<n6k7bjF45rjU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183477

On 13/05/2026 19:00, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2026-05-13, David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 13/05/2026 18:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> [....]
>>>>> I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he
>>>>> attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
>>>>> likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal
>>>>> issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
>>>>> on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
>>>>> People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely
>>>>> shared her last name but have no relation to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
>>>>> but not himself.
>>>>
>>>> Whilst you are here, Brock ......
>>>>
>>>> Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
> 
> Oh brother... you never stop, do you?

I've tried many, many, times to ignore this matter, but something keeps 
niggling away in my head!
>>>> If so, did you save the report?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only the times we’ve talked about. Don’t know if I have any reports now.
>>
>>
>> Try using EasyFind to check. It a really good application.
> 
> Why bring more crap into your computer?
> 
> Just use local tools like Spotlight, mdfind (uses Spotlight's index so
> it's fast) or grep to search for a 'telltale signature' of sorts:
> 
> mdfind "EtreCheck version" (or whatever text is found in all EC
> reports). Surely you have 10 or 20 thousand reports laying around that
> you can give him text from ;)

You are correct in thinking that I have, indeed, saved many EtreCheck
reports - but they are in my "Notes" application.

Here's a recent email exchange:-

On 13 May 2026, at 20:25, ************ via groups.io 
<**********Cloud.com@groups.io> wrote:

Hi David,

I’ve just tried EtreCheck for myself. It writes a report to User >
Library > Application Support > Etrecheck and also makes it easy for you
to save a copy to another location, with Documents as the default. Given
that it’s easy enough to delete the first of those, is this really an issue?

Would it be OK if the app simply made this clearer, or do you think
there should be an option *not* to save the report anywhere?

=

I've responded with:-

Hello *******

Thank you so very much for helping to put my mind at ease! 😊

My friend has confirmed that at the end (bottom) of the EtreCheck report
there is a “tick-box” which one completes if one wishes to keep a copy.
If one doesn’t signify that the report is to be kept, one gets a warning
to say that it will effectively be “lost” forever.

May I ask why you looked in  User > Library > Application Support > ?
Did you do so simply because I had queried why it does so?
Most macOS users, I’m sure, would never dream of looking there,
especially having been warned that a copy of the report would be lost
forever.

Are you, too, not curious as to why reports are saved regardless of the
tick-box instruction?

David

=

I expect you have a logical answer. I'm more than willing to learn 
exactly what it is which I have misunderstood.

Can YOU help?

-- 
Kind regards,
David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183481

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-05-13 23:47 +0000
Message-ID	<6a050d78$0$24$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183480

On May 13, 2026 at 2:04:50 PM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n6k7bjF45rjU1@mid.individual.net>:

> On 13/05/2026 19:00, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2026-05-13, David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2026 18:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> [....]
>>>>>> I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he
>>>>>> attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
>>>>>> likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal
>>>>>> issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
>>>>>> on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
>>>>>> People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely
>>>>>> shared her last name but have no relation to me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
>>>>>> but not himself.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Whilst you are here, Brock ......
>>>>> 
>>>>> Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
>> 
>> Oh brother... you never stop, do you?
> 
> I've tried many, many, times to ignore this matter, but something keeps
> niggling away in my head!

Even though you have repeatedly been told you cause harm you will not let it
go. Have you considered getting assistance with this compulsion of yours? Not
being snarky... I mean it -- this is not healthy.

...

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183483

From	Kelly Phillips <KFile@podcasts.org.invalid>
Date	2026-05-13 21:04 -0500
Message-ID	<1bba0lpj2besvtgs54fcmig40d449j713b@4ax.com>
In reply to	#183480

On Wed, 13 May 2026 22:04:50 +0100, "David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 13/05/2026 19:00, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2026-05-13, David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2026 18:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> [....]
>>>>>> I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he
>>>>>> attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
>>>>>> likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal
>>>>>> issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
>>>>>> on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
>>>>>> People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely
>>>>>> shared her last name but have no relation to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
>>>>>> but not himself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whilst you are here, Brock ......
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
>> 
>> Oh brother... you never stop, do you?
>
>I've tried many, many, times to ignore this matter, but something keeps 
>niggling away in my head!

Do you think it could be a parasite, like a worm, perhaps?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183485

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-05-14 12:32 +0100
Message-ID	<n6lq5jFboieU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183483

On 14/05/2026 03:04, Kelly Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2026 22:04:50 +0100, "David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 13/05/2026 19:00, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2026-05-13, David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 13/05/2026 18:09, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> David B. <David@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/05/2026 14:53, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>> [....]
>>>>>>> I do not fully disagree with Gremlin -- but he is far worse! Look at how he
>>>>>>> attacks me. He makes up the most insane lies (or accepts these lies from the
>>>>>>> likes of Carroll) and repeats them over and over. Driving record and legal
>>>>>>> issue nonsense, lack of business licenses or whatever... just utter fantasies
>>>>>>> on his part. And going FAR beyond anything you have ever done -- he paid for
>>>>>>> People Finder sites and doxxed not just me and my ex, but people who merely
>>>>>>> shared her last name but have no relation to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is crying you do a tiny, tiny fraction of what he does... and judging you
>>>>>>> but not himself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whilst you are here, Brock ......
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you installed and run EtreCheck on your current Apple computer?
>>>
>>> Oh brother... you never stop, do you?
>>
>> I've tried many, many, times to ignore this matter, but something keeps
>> niggling away in my head!
> 
> Do you think it could be a parasite, like a worm, perhaps?
No. THIS is the answer!  https://www.facebook.com/reel/1183406320343214

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183497

From	Gremlin <nobody@haph.org>
Date	2026-05-15 03:34 +0000
Message-ID	<XnsB44CEFCFE92FEHT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>
In reply to	#183473

"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n6ioq9F7kucU1@mid.individual.net
Wed, 13 May 2026 07:50:33 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> On 12/04/2026 04:25, Gremlin wrote:
>> "David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
>> news:n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net[....] 
>>> I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)
>> 
>> It doesn't matter if you accept it or not. The facts are still the
>> same. You have attacked his software and him personally as well as his
>> company, multiple times right here. 
> 
> Dustin,
> 
> I’m happy to concede that my past criticism of EtreCheck has been
> sharp, and I accept that repeating suspicions can be wearying for the
> group. 

sharp? David, your critism has always been unfounded. You've been 
repeatedly told that the program is legitimate. It doesn't give anyone 
remote access to your machine. It doesn't include malware. It doesn't 
download malware after you install it. The author has no responsibility to 
answer any question you ask that isn't directly related supporting the 
software. I went out of my way induldge you and that wasn't something I 
should have done. I believe the Etrecheck author learned from mistakes 
(courtesy of an email archive I sent them) and decided not to follow me 
down the same road; because nothing good would have come of it.

> That said, I won't be intimidated. 

I've made no effort to intimidate you. Further, you are also lying about 
this - You were more than slightly intimidated when usenet came into your 
real life and you had a discussion in person with your police about a 9mm 
handgun you threatened another poster with. You tried to evade them for 
sometime by remaining on the water. You even asked people on usenet if the 
emails the police sent wanting to meet and discuss an issue with you were 
true. So, enough with your bullshit big man chest thumping. It's nonsense.

> You are a skilled developer, and I’ve learned from you over the years.

I know. Which is another reason I bring up your dishonest nature when you 
support things snit writes that you know for an absolute fact are not true. 
Instead of setting him straight, you c/p his bullshit and otherwise keep 
your mouth shut.

> But that doesn't make your word the final law on what constitutes
> "stalking." 

I've never claimed my word did, David. However, your countries laws 
concerning it as well as mine are clear and anyone can look them up. 
Despite you repeatedly disagreeing, you *are a stalker*

> I had a consumer disagreement regarding a paid license—
> nothing more, nothing less.

Liar. You thought by purchasing a license that he was obligated to answer 
your emails that had nothing to do with supporting the software. You were 
upset that he wouldn't respond to such things. That's why you requested 
and recieved a re-fund the first time. His system should have been setup 
that refunds flag your account - a flagged account shouldn't be able to 
purchase the same license they already requested a refund for. You cost a 
small amount of funds in both directions when you purchase and when you 
refund. The author doesn't break even. They go in the hole when you pull 
that shit.

> Let's lower the temperature. 

Stop backing snits bullshit then. It would be different if you didn't know 
any better, but, you do! and you support it anyway. Not a good look, David. 
Not a good look at all.
It's very close to pcbutts all over again. You supported that proven to be 
a code thief, too!

-- 
Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent
Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183498

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-05-15 04:18 +0000
Message-ID	<6a069ea4$0$25$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183497

On May 14, 2026 at 8:34:28 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB44CEFCFE92FEHT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:

> "David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n6ioq9F7kucU1@mid.individual.net
> Wed, 13 May 2026 07:50:33 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> 
>> On 12/04/2026 04:25, Gremlin wrote:
>>> "David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
>>> news:n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net[....]
>>>> I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)
>>> 
>>> It doesn't matter if you accept it or not. The facts are still the
>>> same. You have attacked his software and him personally as well as his
>>> company, multiple times right here.
>> 
>> Dustin,
>> 
>> I’m happy to concede that my past criticism of EtreCheck has been
>> sharp, and I accept that repeating suspicions can be wearying for the
>> group.
> 
> sharp? David, your critism has always been unfounded.

You are correct -- but a complete hypocrite. You make more accusations than he
does. And you do things to attack he does not -- attacking people with lies
about business licenses and driving records and legal issues. You dox people
not even directly attached to your targets as just collateral damage.

David is wrong. I am VERY open with him about my view there.

But what you do is far, far worse.

For you to whine about him just shows you are a hypocrite.

...

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183519

From	"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
Date	2026-05-17 13:26 +0100
Message-ID	<n6tqfkFk1bjU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183497

On 15/05/2026 04:34, Gremlin wrote:
> "David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n6ioq9F7kucU1@mid.individual.net
> Wed, 13 May 2026 07:50:33 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
> 
>> On 12/04/2026 04:25, Gremlin wrote:
>>> "David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk>
>>> news:n3vjf9F453rU1@mid.individual.net[....]
>>>> I don't accept that. He accepted my payment (just a short time ago)
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter if you accept it or not. The facts are still the
>>> same. You have attacked his software and him personally as well as his
>>> company, multiple times right here.
>>
>> Dustin,
>>
>> I’m happy to concede that my past criticism of EtreCheck has been
>> sharp, and I accept that repeating suspicions can be wearying for the
>> group.
> 
> sharp? David, your critism has always been unfounded. You've been
> repeatedly told that the program is legitimate. It doesn't give anyone
> remote access to your machine. It doesn't include malware. It doesn't
> download malware after you install it. The author has no responsibility to
> answer any question you ask that isn't directly related supporting the
> software. I went out of my way induldge you and that wasn't something I
> should have done. I believe the Etrecheck author learned from mistakes
> (courtesy of an email archive I sent them) and decided not to follow me
> down the same road; because nothing good would have come of it.

You are also well aware that you should NOT have reverse engineered the 
EtreCheck product!

I'd like to take up one specific point with you. Even if a product user 
elects to NOT save an EtreCheck report, a complete copy *IS* kept on the 
user's computer, hidden away where most folk will not find it.

One of the features of EtreCheck is that when it is opened it will
'phone home' to Etresoft to check for updates. By so doing it provides
John Daniel the actual IP address of the user.

You are well aware that unscrupulous characters can use that information
to scan for open ports and, if found, can sneak into a computer unseen.

>> That said, I won't be intimidated.
> 
> I've made no effort to intimidate you. Further, you are also lying about
> this - You were more than slightly intimidated when usenet came into your
> real life and you had a discussion in person with your police about a 9mm
> handgun you threatened another poster with. You tried to evade them for
> sometime by remaining on the water. You even asked people on usenet if the
> emails the police sent wanting to meet and discuss an issue with you were
> true. So, enough with your bullshit big man chest thumping. It's nonsense.

I don't dispute that I was once visited my local police. Many folk 
reading here will probably be unaware of that!
>> You are a skilled developer, and I’ve learned from you over the years.
> 
> I know. Which is another reason I bring up your dishonest nature when you
> support things snit writes that you know for an absolute fact are not true.
> Instead of setting him straight, you c/p his bullshit and otherwise keep
> your mouth shut.

I have no way of /knowing/ what is true and what is not.
>> But that doesn't make your word the final law on what constitutes
>> "stalking."
> 
> I've never claimed my word did, David. However, your countries laws
> concerning it as well as mine are clear and anyone can look them up.
> Despite you repeatedly disagreeing, you *are a stalker*

I am an *INVESTIGATOR*, Dustin Cook.

I discovered that *YOU* were a *VIRUS WRITER*!!!!!!
>> I had a consumer disagreement regarding a paid license—
>> nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Liar. You thought by purchasing a license that he was obligated to answer
> your emails that had nothing to do with supporting the software. You were
> upset that he wouldn't respond to such things. That's why you requested
> and recieved a re-fund the first time. His system should have been setup
> that refunds flag your account - a flagged account shouldn't be able to
> purchase the same license they already requested a refund for. You cost a
> small amount of funds in both directions when you purchase and when you
> refund. The author doesn't break even. They go in the hole when you pull
> that shit.

The paid-for version is working well on my 2017 iMac - although it does
*NOT* identify that the Fusion Drive is broken.
>> Let's lower the temperature.
> 
> Stop backing snits bullshit then. It would be different if you didn't know
> any better, but, you do! and you support it anyway. Not a good look, David.
> Not a good look at all.
> It's very close to pcbutts all over again. You supported that proven to be
> a code thief, too!

Have you *ANY idea how hard it is to uncover the truth?

-- 
David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183533

From	Gremlin <nobody@haph.org>
Date	2026-05-20 02:51 +0000
Message-ID	<XnsB451E895A53E2HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>
In reply to	#183519

"David B." <David@hotmail.co.uk> news:n6tqfkFk1bjU1@mid.individual.net
Sun, 17 May 2026 12:26:28 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> I'd like to take up one specific point with you. Even if a product user 
> elects to NOT save an EtreCheck report, a complete copy *IS* kept on the
> user's computer, hidden away where most folk will not find it.

Why do you think it's hidden away where most people wouldn't find it?

> One of the features of EtreCheck is that when it is opened it will
> 'phone home' to Etresoft to check for updates. By so doing it provides
> John Daniel the actual IP address of the user.

It provides an IP address. It can't get the specific user from an IP address 
alone. You have heard of networks, right?

> You are well aware that unscrupulous characters can use that information
> to scan for open ports and, if found, can sneak into a computer unseen.

That's a gross over simplification of the process, David. 

> I don't dispute that I was once visited my local police. Many folk 
> reading here will probably be unaware of that!

Some? might not have known about it. Those of us who have known you for a long 
time do know about it. We watched it go down, virtually speaking.

> I have no way of /knowing/ what is true and what is not.

Then you shouldn't blindly repeat what you are told, David. Especially by 
someone with a history such as Snits.

> I am an *INVESTIGATOR*, Dustin Cook.

No, you are nothing of the kind. You are infact, a slightly demented, stalker, 
and, other things.

> I discovered that *YOU* were a *VIRUS WRITER*!!!!!!

You discovered something that's been public information for almost a decade 
longer than I've known you? Exactly how did you do this?
An investigator you are not. An idiot, you are.

-- 
Liar, lawyer; mirror show me, what's the difference?
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent
Liar, lawyer; mirror for ya', what's the difference?
Kangaroo be stoned. He's guilty as the government

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183534

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-05-20 03:35 +0000
Message-ID	<6a0d2be8$0$55442$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183533

On May 19, 2026 at 7:51:50 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
<XnsB451E895A53E2HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:

...
> 
> It provides an IP address. It can't get the specific user from an IP address
> alone.

Good to hear you say this.

...

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183536

From	"David B." <"David B."@invalid.org>
Date	2026-05-20 08:13 +0100
Message-ID	<n7558nF9dqsU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183534

On 20/05/2026 04:35, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 19, 2026 at 7:51:50 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
> <XnsB451E895A53E2HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
> 
> ...
>>
>> It provides an IP address. It can't get the specific user from an IP address
>> alone.
> 
> Good to hear you say this.

Have YOU done any "Penetration Testing", Michael?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_test

-- 
Kind regards,
David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183541

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-05-20 14:12 +0000
Message-ID	<6a0dc132$0$19$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183536

On May 20, 2026 at 12:13:27 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n7558nF9dqsU1@mid.individual.net>:

> On 20/05/2026 04:35, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 19, 2026 at 7:51:50 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
>> <XnsB451E895A53E2HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
>> 
>> ...
>>> 
>>> It provides an IP address. It can't get the specific user from an IP address
>>> alone.
>> 
>> Good to hear you say this.
> 
> Have YOU done any "Penetration Testing", Michael?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_test

No.

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183547

From	"David B." <"David B."@invalid.org>
Date	2026-05-20 17:49 +0100
Message-ID	<n76709FeiqbU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183541

On 20/05/2026 15:12, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 20, 2026 at 12:13:27 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
> <n7558nF9dqsU1@mid.individual.net>:
> 
>> On 20/05/2026 04:35, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 19, 2026 at 7:51:50 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
>>> <XnsB451E895A53E2HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> It provides an IP address. It can't get the specific user from an IP address
>>>> alone.
>>>
>>> Good to hear you say this.
>>
>> Have YOU done any "Penetration Testing", Michael?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_test
> 
> No.
Thanks.

I know a man who did it professionally! 😅

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183554

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-05-21 00:52 +0000
Message-ID	<6a0e5733$0$23$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183547

On May 20, 2026 at 9:49:13 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n76709FeiqbU1@mid.individual.net>:

> On 20/05/2026 15:12, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 20, 2026 at 12:13:27 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>> <n7558nF9dqsU1@mid.individual.net>:
>> 
>>> On 20/05/2026 04:35, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On May 19, 2026 at 7:51:50 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
>>>> <XnsB451E895A53E2HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
>>>> 
>>>> ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> It provides an IP address. It can't get the specific user from an IP address
>>>>> alone.
>>>> 
>>>> Good to hear you say this.
>>> 
>>> Have YOU done any "Penetration Testing", Michael?
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_test
>> 
>> No.
> Thanks.
> 
> I know a man who did it professionally! 😅

The penetration I do is skilled but not professional. :)

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183556

From	"David B." <"David B."@invalid.org>
Date	2026-05-21 09:22 +0100
Message-ID	<n77tmpFmk9fU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#183554

On 21/05/2026 01:52, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 20, 2026 at 9:49:13 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
> <n76709FeiqbU1@mid.individual.net>:
> 
>> On 20/05/2026 15:12, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>> On May 20, 2026 at 12:13:27 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>> <n7558nF9dqsU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>> On 20/05/2026 04:35, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>> On May 19, 2026 at 7:51:50 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
>>>>> <XnsB451E895A53E2HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It provides an IP address. It can't get the specific user from an IP address
>>>>>> alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to hear you say this.
>>>>
>>>> Have YOU done any "Penetration Testing", Michael?
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_test
>>>
>>> No.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I know a man who did it professionally! 😅
> 
> The penetration I do is skilled but not professional. :)

Are you being rude?!!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183564

From	Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com>
Date	2026-05-21 14:01 +0000
Message-ID	<6a0f1039$0$27$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#183556

On May 21, 2026 at 1:22:49 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
<n77tmpFmk9fU2@mid.individual.net>:

> On 21/05/2026 01:52, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>> On May 20, 2026 at 9:49:13 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>> <n76709FeiqbU1@mid.individual.net>:
>> 
>>> On 20/05/2026 15:12, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> On May 20, 2026 at 12:13:27 AM MST, ""David B."" wrote
>>>> <n7558nF9dqsU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 20/05/2026 04:35, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>>>> On May 19, 2026 at 7:51:50 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
>>>>>> <XnsB451E895A53E2HT1@cF04o3ON7k2lx05.lLC.9r5>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It provides an IP address. It can't get the specific user from an IP address
>>>>>>> alone.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Good to hear you say this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Have YOU done any "Penetration Testing", Michael?
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetration_test
>>>> 
>>>> No.
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> I know a man who did it professionally! 😅
>> 
>> The penetration I do is skilled but not professional. :)
> 
> Are you being rude?!!!!!

No, just crude. :)

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →

csiph-web

You can protect your Mac from malware by following three simple rules!

Contents

#183482

#183486

#183487

#183489

#183491

#183480

#183481

#183483

#183485

#183497

#183498

#183519

#183533

#183534

#183536

#183541

#183547

#183554

#183556

#183564