24-Apr-2024 12:14 GMT.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Anonymous, there are 72 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 72]

[Forum] Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device ANN.lu Posted on 13-Nov-2002 21:43 GMT by ELBOX (Edited on 2002-11-14 09:34:59 GMT by Christian Kemp) 72 comments View flat View list The ANN list has had a tread since Monday, posted by an anonymous hacker, with rumours discrediting our company. Yesterday we wrote Mr. Christian Kemp. So far, Mr. Christian Kemp did not respond to our messages, opening a new tread instead, in which he comments our position by twisting facts. I'd like to hear specific examples on where I 'twisted facts' To dispel any doubts, please find below (Read More) the complete text of our messages to the ANN administrator. Elbox statement you can find at Elbox website. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Fwd: ANN Netiquette Violation] Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:41:32 +0100 From: ELBOX Organization: ELBOX COMPUTER To: ckemp@ann.lu CC: teemu@kanetti.com, cdecanini@yahoo.com Dear Mr. Kemp, WE DEMAND IMMEDIATE REMOVAL of the anonymous post, which includes FALSE, offensive statements against Elbox, placed at . You have not understood what I have written in my message to you. Even worse, it looks like you have not taken your time to try to understand the issue. I wrote you: 'If the administrators of this website believe the imputations in this tread, they should have removed it right away as violating the Terms of Service in DreamHost (as using legal property (computer code) of another entity without its permission). If they believed the text to be imputation, they should have removed it as violating the ANN netiquette.' Now you are informed about the fact that this post includes FALSE information, yet: 1. You still keep the offensive tread in your service, 2. You have changed its status from anonymous to signed/edited by you, 3. You have written that we asked you to remove the code--which is CLEARLY UNTRUE. In this situation, we hope that you are aware that: In case of incurring any losses in our sales and marketing programs as a result of your publishing this post as well as your twisting our demand for clarification, we will have to sue you, the administrator of this web service. The only way you can avoid such consequences is: 1. Remove the whole tread - not because is it critical against Elbox, but because it comes from an anonymous person. The posting person introduces himself as a person who ILLEGALLY acquired the Elbox software and is HACKING it "for his own needs". Besides, he has no guts to sign the message with his real name. And, last but not least, his post includes FALSE, offensive information. 2. Post our official statement in this matter, which will be sent to you when you complete step 1. If you have come across legal activities in the world, what we are doing is not blackmailing you, because we have nothing to do with you as a person. We are striving to keep the Amiga community free of anonymous "users" whose only interest is to create turmoil in the Amiga circles. The problem is with your role as a service administrator: your responsibility is to stop spreading false information... or are we wrong? Besides, we are a party in this tread and you are commenting on us without contacting us at all. This is not the way to go, really. Best regards, Mariusz Wloczysiak Press Department of ELBOX COMPUTER http://www.elbox.com -------- Original Message -------- Subject: ANN Netiquette Violation Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 18:34:20 +0100 From: ELBOX Organization: ELBOX COMPUTER To: ckemp@ann.lu Dear Mr. Christian Kemp, We have received several messages from our customers (including Vesalia advertising in your website), which indicate that there is a tread of attacks against our company in the ANN part administered by you. It was originated yesterday, when we were not at the office (11 November is a state holiday in Poland). The tread is at: . This anonymous post includes false, offensive statements against Elbox. Please immediately remove this post along with all the comments to it. If the administrators of this website believe the imputations in this tread, they should have removed it right away as violating the Terms of Service in DreamHost (as using legal property (computer code) of another entity without its permission). If they believed the text to be imputation, they should have removed it as violating the ANN netiquette. For legal reasons, we would like you to provide us IP number of the computer, from which this post was sent. Best regards, Mariusz Wloczysiak Press Department of ELBOX COMPUTER http://www.elbox.com Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 1 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 13-Nov-2002 20:54 GMT You didn't clarify what happens if the driver is damaged while it is already decoded and in memory, like with the proggie I wrote, which changes a random part of the driver. Please be more specific, like "no such stuff is triggered if anybody runs this prog", so that the rumour is dispelled once and for all. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 2 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by redrumloa on 13-Nov-2002 21:22 GMT I'm sorry Elbox, but this clarification does not give me the warm fuzzies. A plain language clarification minus legal threats would make potential customers and site administrators alot happier. This clarification does not even plainly state that malicous code does not exist, only that legal customers should not worry. Myself as a (very)potential Mediator customer am discomforted by the inclusion of such code, even if the chances of accidental activiation is minimal. I also think it would be extremely prudent to treat Mr Kemp with a little more respect than is displayed here. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 3 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by JoannaK on 13-Nov-2002 21:38 GMT In reply to Comment 2 (redrumloa): I think Elbox has a lot to learn about how PR is usually handled... Ah well. They are soon runnin out of clients so, I can understand they are a bit stressed. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 4 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Gabriele Favrin on 13-Nov-2002 21:45 GMT So... Elbox still doesn't DENY the presence of that code. Instead they want all posts and comments removed, ie. they want the argoment hidden!. What is the conclusion? tHey are accused of something, they reply with violence and they ask to remover not only original posts but also comments of other people (and they do NOT have the right to ask for this, not in EU). So, for now we see that they are trying to hide the accuses against them but they still don't want or can't deny the presence of that code. Interesting position guys. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 5 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by i dont believe this on 13-Nov-2002 21:48 GMT IMO mr.kemp did comply with the terms legally needed and removed the code from the thread as soon as he was notified/able to do so. At least that is what he says in the modified/code removed thread. Having to remove the whole thread because people are exersizing their freedom of speech in a public forum is not elbox's decision as it's not their website. Legal threats against mr.kemp will only tarnish the public image of elbox even more as they now seem to have failed in producing evidence wheter the alledged malicious code truly exists in their products, and instead rely on PR talk and threats. Don't let them scare you Christian, you did nothing wrong and you know it. I advice you to be in touch with a legal consultant and find out what is bluff and what can be done. If they are bluffing, you got yourself a case of public slander against you and ann. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 6 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by DaveW on 13-Nov-2002 21:50 GMT In reply to Comment 4 (Gabriele Favrin): Did any of you follow the link to the Elbox site? "Rumour: The usb.device drivers has some procedures, which may damage hdd RDB if any external program accidentally damages the driver code. Answer: No." You have to account for the fact that Elbox reps do not have English as their first language. Speaking as a customer, I have NEVER had any problems with Elbox or their customer support. The kit is excellent. Until this is independently verified I am inclined to treat the rumour with caution. I can't independently verify it unless I buy a USB card from them and make the decision to potentially go against the license and decrypt it to see the content. Fortunately given that I cant afford to spend time playing with new kit at the moment that isn't going to happen from me. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 7 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by DaveW on 13-Nov-2002 21:55 GMT In reply to Comment 5 (i dont believe this): Im not saying that Elbox are right or wrong, I think the discussion between them and Christian is not my business. "Having to remove the whole thread because people are exersizing their freedom of speech in a public forum is not elbox's decision as it's not their website" But look at it from Elbox's point of view. 1. If the code is genuine then it should be removed because it is copyrighted. 2. If the code is not genuine then this is a defamation and as the Demon Internet case proved Christian might be liable for not removing it once Elbox requested it. So, in my view Christian did the only sensible thing and removed the code. The potentially libellous claims against Elbox may or may not be prudent to remove, edit or leave alone. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 8 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 13-Nov-2002 21:57 GMT In reply to Comment 6 (DaveW): Who told you you need to decrypt anything? You just have to: 1) Backup the RDB with HDToolBox. 2) Get poseidon online. 3) Run my test prog and follow the instructions. 4) Post here, if the rumour is fake or not. See? No need to decrypt anything, my proggie doesn't decrypt anything, it just changes the checksum of the driver by changing a single byte in the resident driver, it's just to see if these allegations are true, cause if they are, it will trigger the rdb trashing code. Be sure to test it with the CURRENT driver, cause if it did exist, Elbox isn't stupid to repeat it in the next driver. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 9 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by cOrpse on 13-Nov-2002 22:22 GMT In reply to Comment 8 (Alkis Tsapanidis): Whats to say your prog isn't the one killing drives ;) Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 10 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Anonymous on 13-Nov-2002 22:29 GMT In reply to Comment 9 (cOrpse): Because it includes the source code, huh. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 11 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Anonymous on 13-Nov-2002 22:29 GMT In reply to Comment 7 (DaveW): "1. If the code is genuine then it should be removed because it is copyrighted." Fair use permits the use of excerpts from a larger work in reporting and research. There is no threat to the creator here, because the code fragment shown is not a functional USB driver, nor in any professional estimation a significant part of such a driver. It's just evidence. Fair use was made for this kind of case, where the copyright holder has an interest in preventing review of his work. If the complete source code (disassembled or stolen) or indeed the driver itself had been put on a web site for all to see, that would certainly be an infringement, but the piece quoted here on ANN seems like a textbook example of fair use. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 12 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Julio on 13-Nov-2002 22:34 GMT In reply to Comment 8 (Alkis Tsapanidis): I reinstalled usb.device 1.7 and I did exactly like you said... and nothing happened... hdd is still OK. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 13 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Anonymous on 13-Nov-2002 22:38 GMT In reply to Comment 12 (Julio): Afaik you need to go online/offline with Poseidon few times after the "Writing 0xff in 0xd4" text. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 14 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Julio on 13-Nov-2002 22:42 GMT In reply to Comment 13 (Anonymous): Yes, I did it. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 15 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by q on 13-Nov-2002 22:53 GMT In reply to Comment 14 (Julio): Who gains from this Elbox-bashing, if all these accusations are untrue? Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 16 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by q on 13-Nov-2002 22:55 GMT In reply to Comment 15 (q): Well, obviously I don't mean you, Julio - just that fellow who posted this thing Elbox/USB-driver in the first place. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 17 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by [JC] on 13-Nov-2002 23:02 GMT Let them try to sue ANN. Then have Amiga users set up a counter-class action suit for the illegal code present in their drivers. This would require an independant person to inspect the source code (including reverse engineered versions) to confirm or deny its presence - If Elbox was found guilty, they are found guilty of willingly corrupting users data, a SERIOUS CRIME in most countries, they would be sued, most likely the driver authors would go to prison, and most likely they would go out of business to boot. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 18 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Anonymous on 13-Nov-2002 23:25 GMT In reply to Comment 16 (q): Elbox wrote it: Some persons/companies do not like this situation, as they would like to compete with Elbox. They know they cannot, though: they have no knowledge or employees to work with or determination to provide on-going support for their products. However, we continue receiving signals from various sources on attempts at disassembling and hacking our drivers for the purpose of stealing the results of our efforts and work. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 19 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by cOrpse on 13-Nov-2002 23:37 GMT In reply to Comment 12 (Julio): Maybe theres just a batch of infected install dis(k/c)s then and all this fuss has been for nothing. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 20 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Mike Veroukis on 14-Nov-2002 00:07 GMT In reply to Comment 11 (Anonymous): >Fair use permits the use of excerpts from a larger work in reporting and >research. There is no threat to the creator here, because the code fragment >shown is not a functional USB driver, nor in any professional estimation a >significant part of such a driver. It's just evidence. That maybe so but Elbox also has the right to ask a judge to determine this. I've seen many use the "fair use" argument in court and lost. - Mike Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 21 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Mike Veroukis on 14-Nov-2002 00:15 GMT Here's what I think; This whole thing is nothing more then a slander attempt against Elbox. The RDB thrashing rumour is rather lame as Elbox isn't overly concerned about piracy so much as having it's driver code ripted off by competing companies. Furthermore, Elbox has mentioned that they are aware of many attempts by hackers to decrupt their driver code, so inserting RDB thrashing code in their driver would be extra stupid on their part as it would be only a matter of time before some hacker discovered and reported it. I don't think Elbox is stupid, however, I've seen a lot of stupid people here on ANN gobbling up any and every conspiracy theory there is. Grow up people, and get a life while you're at it! - Mike Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 22 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Gabriele Favrin on 14-Nov-2002 00:59 GMT In reply to Comment 21 (Mike Veroukis): This evening ElBox distributed an update to their usb.device, stating that they do so sfter hacker attempts to mess with it. Very curious situation, isn't it? Still, ElBox has to understand that they can't stop freedom of speech and have comments by people removed. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 23 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by garfield on 14-Nov-2002 01:28 GMT Are we talking about this code? <snip> CLR.L (A3) ;ok, it's a RDB, preparing to overwrite it MOVEA.L A4,A1 MOVE.W #CMD_WRITE,(IO_COMMAND,A1) MOVE.L A0,(IO_DATA,A1) ;random datas there.. MOVE.L #512,(IO_LENGTH,A1) CLR.L (IO_OFFSET,A1) MOVEA.L A6,A0 SUBA.L #$1C8,A0 JSR (A0) ;call DoIO()! the RDB is overwritten with random data! <snip> Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 24 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Dagon (HELLAS) on 14-Nov-2002 02:04 GMT My personal opinion is that it was FUD. I only know that ELBOX expanded the life of Amiga with their products when was in need and we should appreciate it. As for the ELBOX-Kent issue lets just forget it. whats done is done, just post on all Amiga news sites what says the "Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device" Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 25 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Dagon on 14-Nov-2002 02:05 GMT In reply to Comment 24 (Dagon (HELLAS)): I ment Kemp :P orthografical error Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 26 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Ferry on 14-Nov-2002 02:36 GMT In reply to Comment 7 (DaveW): "1. If the code is genuine then it should be removed because it is copyrighted. " But if the code is genuine, Elbox could be sued for a serious crime. Elbox can ask Christian to remove the code because it's copyrighted, but they don't have any right to ask him to remove the news itself, since it IS true. At most, they could try to sue the original poster for disassembling the code and ask Christian to give them the IP of the poster. "2. If the code is not genuine then this is a defamation and as the Demon Internet case proved Christian might be liable for not removing it once Elbox requested it." If that is the case and the code is not genuine, Elbox does not need to answer in such violent way, they only have to say "That code is not part of our driver", and then Christian removes the whole thread for being a false news. Period. The question is that, after reading the Elbox statement, I have not seen any answer to the main accusation in the original post: "...usb.device has a VERY DANGEROUS RDB trashing code..." Mr.Wloczysiak, Elbox PR, does your usb.device v1.7 contain that code? Please answer simply "YES" or "NOT". Ferry Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 27 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by brotheris on 14-Nov-2002 03:45 GMT In reply to Comment 14 (Julio): You should quit MCP before doing any of this. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 28 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Ray M Simone on 14-Nov-2002 05:14 GMT In reply to Comment 27 (brotheris): > You should quit MCP before doing any of this. Aha! That did the trick. Thanks. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 29 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by John Q Public on 14-Nov-2002 05:18 GMT Elbox: "However, we continue receiving signals from various sources on attempts at disassembling and hacking our drivers for the purpose of stealing the results of our efforts and work." Strange. I wonder if the P96 Team thought this same thing. Quick! Someone find a legal loophole to hide in! Psychologically speaking, and bearing in mind English is not the native language for the Elbox PR department, it's interesting to note how the level of open hostility shown by Elbox in their replies far exceeds the level of reasonable offense, when as another ANN denizen pointed out quite nicely it could have been cleared up with a simple statement - "The driver does not contain the code fragment as reported by Qwe." All the accusatory posturing is merely a defense mechanism, and is a textbook response by anyone caught in the act of deceit. If the code fragment has been misinterpreted by the original poster Qwe, or doesn't actually exist, then what does Elbox fear? On the other hand, there are and have been better ways to protect one's intellectual property from those that would wish to use it on hardware not officially sanctioned by the company. A simple check for the SpiderUSB's presence on the PCI bus, and an error message stating "SpiderUSB not found on system" would be enough in most cases to discourage the use of their usb driver on, for example, a Highway, a Thylacine, etc. If Elbox wanted to truly help develop the USB market for the Amiga, they could always take a page from Matay's book and share the fruit of their experience with other USB hardware developers, and/or end users. I'm certain enough of their code is PCI-bus specific enough to ensure there would be very little loss in profit for them, while possibly enhancing the ability for users to have access to more USB devices, even if they don't have a Mediator, by assisting other USB hardware developers get over USB specific compatability issues. And in a perfect world, this would work... Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 30 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by brotheris on 14-Nov-2002 05:51 GMT In reply to Comment 29 (John Q Public): "A simple check for the SpiderUSB's presence on the PCI bus, and an error message stating "SpiderUSB not found on system" would be enough in most cases to discourage the use of their usb driver on, for example, a Highway, a Thylacine, etc." Elbox driver shows this requester. It is not a problem. A problem is rdb destroyng code in their driver (none seems to make a backup to survice and tell us ;-) You could start (for example) IBrowse, it could vomit all over your memory, you then for some obscure reason you go offline with poseidon and then online and oops, rdb doesn't exist. If this illegal code is in place, then it can do a lot of damage to your media (expect new usb driver version to issue ctrl-c to mcp task or remove/hide those routines). Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 31 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 14-Nov-2002 07:52 GMT PLEASE, someone SUE them, so that they can shut up once and forever... What a shame... Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 32 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Lando on 14-Nov-2002 09:17 GMT In reply to Comment 17 ([JC]): >Let them try to sue ANN. Then have Amiga users set up a counter-class action >suit for the illegal code present in their drivers. Duh... Elbox wouldn't sue if the code was present (which it is now 99% certain it was not). So I doubt Amiga "Users" would get very far in their counter-suit. If Elbox loses sales because of false information posted on a Web site that the administrators of the Web site refuse to remove, they have a right to sue. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 33 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Panthro on 14-Nov-2002 09:20 GMT In reply to Comment 31 (Fabio Alemagna): All this SUE this & SUE that is VERY UNamiga what a joke.... if we were an army the we would now be cheerfully shooting each other's foot. Fair go!!! ...... LET THE TRUTH COME OUT. trust me it always does in the end!! IF I where ELBOX I would simply ask Amiga Inc to check it (with apporpiate NDA's signed) & make an offical statment. This would be in everyones interest. (dont know how hair brained that idea is :-/ ) mean while I think ELbox should get a pat on the back for an excellant product!!! Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 34 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 14-Nov-2002 09:24 GMT In reply to Comment 32 (Lando): > Duh... Elbox wouldn't sue if the code was present (which it is now 99% certain > it was not). Someone in this thread has already confirmed that the problem _does_ exist, and the driver _does_ cause damage. So no, it's 99% certain it is. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 35 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by George on 14-Nov-2002 10:53 GMT In reply to Comment 34 (Fabio Alemagna): You have mixed things up. In comment 12 someone who has tested it is writing that the hd is all right. So it is 100% certain that the problem does not exist. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 36 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by samface on 14-Nov-2002 10:55 GMT In reply to Comment 34 (Fabio Alemagna): "Someone in this thread has already confirmed that the problem _does_ exist, and the driver _does_ cause damage. So no, it's 99% certain it is." Now THIS is a *perfect* example of how so many people in the community prefer believing in what "someone" said on a forum than the official information available from the concerned parties. Need I say more? Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 37 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 14-Nov-2002 11:16 GMT In reply to Comment 35 (George): You might want to read comment 28, and then come back and say "oh, sorry". Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 38 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 14-Nov-2002 11:16 GMT In reply to Comment 12 (Julio): So it's a hoax. Good. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 39 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 14-Nov-2002 11:18 GMT In reply to Comment 36 (samface): > Now THIS is a *perfect* example of how so many people in the community prefer > believing in what "someone" said on a forum than the official information > available from the concerned parties. Need I say more? The concerned "parties" are also the users who got their RDB's destroyed. I cannot test it myself, since I don't own an elbox and I'm not in possession of the drivers. Can you test that what's bein claimed is untrue? If not, just shut up. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 40 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 14-Nov-2002 11:21 GMT In reply to Comment 28 (Ray M Simone): What exactly happened? Someone posted that it did nothing. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 41 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Anonymous on 14-Nov-2002 11:33 GMT In reply to Comment 35 (George): You should also remember this part of the source: ; Read CIAA Timer B low byte ($BFE601) and if lower 4 bits are ; zero, leave now. This add some random element to the trigger ; condition, so it's harder to screen the cause of the RDB trash ; by problem isolation. This already suggests that something ; nasty is about to happen later... ; MOVE.B ($BFE601).L,D0 ANDI.B #15,D0 BEQ.W .leave So, on average, nothing will happend every 16'th time you try it.. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 42 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by samface on 14-Nov-2002 11:58 GMT In reply to Comment 39 (Fabio Alemagna): Well... *sigh* As you obviously didn't notice, my post was actually a little off topic. All I said was that it was a perfect example of how so many Amiga users tend to believe what "someone" completely unknown writes in a forum rather than actual verified information and facts. The statement I quoted above claimed that something (irrelevant) was 99% sure because "someone" said so. My point is that what someone writes in a forum is worth nothing more than the extra bandwidth those HTML characters waste and can hardly be used as evidence. That's all. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 43 of 72 ANN.lu Message removed by CK for violation of ANN's posting rules. Specific reason from moderator: Profanity Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 44 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 14-Nov-2002 12:06 GMT In reply to Comment 42 (samface): > My point is that what someone writes in a forum is worth nothing more than the > extra bandwidth those HTML characters waste and can hardly be used as evidence. > That's all. Ok, then why do you write in forums if what you write is worth nothinh and people shouldn't trust it? I mean, the same rule applies to your words too, don't you think? On the other hand, if I owned a mediator and did the test myself and proved it true, how could I make you believe me? After all, I'm writing on a forum, aren't I? Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 45 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Julio on 14-Nov-2002 12:21 GMT In reply to Comment 27 (brotheris): I have never used MCP. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 46 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Julio on 14-Nov-2002 12:24 GMT In reply to Comment 41 (Anonymous): I checked it many times and nothing happend, hdd is sill OK. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 47 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by samface on 14-Nov-2002 12:33 GMT In reply to Comment 44 (Fabio Alemagna): "Ok, then why do you write in forums if what you write is worth nothinh and people shouldn't trust it? I mean, the same rule applies to your words too, don't you think?" First of all, I must thank you for giving me and my collegues at work a really good laugh. Are you really serious, are you for real? In case you do lack all forms of common sense; what I wrote was an *argument*. Do you see the difference between an argument based on reason and stating "facts"? "On the other hand, if I owned a mediator and did the test myself and proved it true, how could I make you believe me? After all, I'm writing on a forum, aren't I?" If I believe you or not isn't relevant, whatever you write cannot simply be considered proof or fact at all without some kind of verification. It's as simple as that. Disclaimer: This has nothing to do with the topic at all and I choose to stay neutral when it comes to whether Elbox is the bad guys or not. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 48 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by redrumloa on 14-Nov-2002 12:42 GMT In reply to Comment 47 (samface): Come on now samface, don't be a Elbox apologist. Let them stand on their own 2 feet. Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 49 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by samface on 14-Nov-2002 12:43 GMT In reply to Comment 48 (redrumloa): Didn't you read my disclaimer? Elbox dispels rumours about usb.device : Comment 50 of 72 ANN.lu Posted by Bladerunner on 14-Nov-2002 12:48 GMT In reply to Comment 47 (samface): Oh, to proof that Elbox are the bad guys is really simple: goto the Picasso 96 Homepage, check the link "distribution" and check the part "development for p96" and Licensing. and then ask wether Elbox paid for the driver development or not. (To give you the answer, they didn`t) Anonymous, there are 72 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 72]

User Menu User Login Nickname: Password: About ANN archives The ANN archives is powered by #AmigaZeux. It was updated daily (news last: 22-Oct-2004; comments last: 18-May-2005). ANN.lu was created, previously owned and maintained by Christian Kemp, www.ckemp.com. Contribute Not possible at this time! Search ANN archives Advanced search Hosting ANN.lu was hosted by Dreamhost. Sign up through this link, mention "ckemp" as referrer and he will get a 10% commission on any account you purchase. Please show your appreciation for any past, present and future work on ANN.lu by making a contribution via PayPal.

Back to Top