| [Web] The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" | ANN.lu |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 1 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Peter Gordon on 19-Nov-2002 12:27 GMT | | Widespread reporting of this whole debacle is, imho, not in the best interests of the Amiga community :( I figured the comment section was the place to relay my personal opinion, not the news item itself. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 2 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by JoannaK on 19-Nov-2002 12:43 GMT | In reply to Comment 1 (Peter Gordon):
Lucky us that Amiga (ans especially Elbox) is so meaningless in big picture... Has this been found on some well known PC card drivers it would have hitted all major newsrooms around the world. But cause Amiga is insignificant this will go by without much notice. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 3 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by reflect on 19-Nov-2002 12:49 GMT | In reply to Comment 1 (Peter Gordon):
why isn't it in the best interest? How many times has other companies stepped on our toes, and how many times has the big masses just forgot all about it after a little while? Perhaps this will force elbox to change their policy when it comes to drivers.. I sincerely hope so. The make great hardware, and have good drivers for most of their products(I haven't tried ALL their hardware..).
I just don't like this policy of theirs. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 4 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Christian Kemp on 19-Nov-2002 12:50 GMT | | Someone should really compile a timeline of all the recent events, along with relevant quotes and links to individual messages, so that an outsider can get a better idea of what happened... |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 5 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Peter Gordon on 19-Nov-2002 12:51 GMT | In reply to Comment 3 (reflect):
Because people from outside the community who are curious about the Amiga market get an instant bad impression, and first impressions last.
If Elbox maintain their business methods, they will soon find customers hitting them where it hurts, simply by not buying their products. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 6 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Björn Hagström on 19-Nov-2002 12:57 GMT | Well, atleast AMD has some good taste in women. Ohh this was about the article, sorry. Uhmm, Elbox? Don't care.
/Björn |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 7 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Peter Gordon on 19-Nov-2002 13:01 GMT | In reply to Comment 6 (Björn Hagström):
I may have missed something, but I don't understand the humour, or the point of that post?! |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 8 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Björn Hagström on 19-Nov-2002 13:05 GMT | In reply to Comment 7 (Peter Gordon):
That's okey, it's not obligatory.
Anyway, the image with the woman in AMD clothing to the left has an interresting 'alt' text, it says:
img alt="An Intel representative..." height="251px" width="120px" border="0" src="images/ads/Inquirer/lassie.jpg"
/Björn |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 9 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by JoannaK on 19-Nov-2002 13:06 GMT | In reply to Comment 5 (Peter Gordon):
I think it's better people to know in adwantage what kind of companies they are going to deal with. If someone knowingly want to purchase products made by Elbox (and alike) then it's their own decision, but trying to hide facts and show 'good face' ain't going to help on long run. You can't cover these companies forever, you know. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 10 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by priest on 19-Nov-2002 13:13 GMT | Should I cry or laugh?
Wery interesting that the press is still interested in "Amiga", but IMO this is not good PR. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 11 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 19-Nov-2002 13:17 GMT | Well if an Amiga user tipped them off then they are an idiot in my view.
For a more detailed insight into my view see the other Elbox threads. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 12 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Gabriele Favrin on 19-Nov-2002 13:21 GMT | In reply to Comment 10 (priest):
>Should I cry or laugh?
>Wery interesting that the press is still interested in "Amiga", but IMO this is not good PR.
Another thing to blame Elbox for.
They damaged users, and even the image of Amiga community. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 13 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by marktime on 19-Nov-2002 13:23 GMT | Oh you all will call me an unrepentent liar now, but that AMD woman looks a lot like my wife.
Oh you say, then why in the name of all thats good and holy am I writing to an amiga website instead of spending all my time at home...I don't know! I want to spend all my time at home, but believe it or not it isn't part of the deal (I know what a ripoff!), and I still have to go to work (thereby giving me opportunity to surf the web, phthfthltt)...
OK, back to the subject at hand...I am GLAD its not just me...I thought maybe it was just me....the whole Elbox letter sounded like someone straight off the happy truck, still frothing at the mouth had found a computer terminal just in time to post a letter before the men in white suits came with the appropriate medication. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 14 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 19-Nov-2002 13:30 GMT | In reply to Comment 12 (Gabriele Favrin):
How did they damage users?
How did they damage the image of the Amiga community? |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 15 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Amigan Software on 19-Nov-2002 13:31 GMT | Heheheheh, at last THE CONFESSION!!
You lying bastards Elbox, not only do you first put this trojan in your drivers, then you have the nerve to lie about it even when confronted with a disassembly of it.
Amigan Software has now joined the boycott against Elbox; we will not be purchasing, supporting or endorsing any of Elbox's hardware or software. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 16 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Gabriele Favrin on 19-Nov-2002 13:38 GMT | In reply to Comment 14 (DaveW):
>How did they damage users?
By trashing their RDB,
by selling illegal software,
by putting at risk people's work, with code that any software could have triggered...
>How did they damage the image of the Amiga community?
Ask to who coniders this story a bad spot for Amiga... |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 17 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by reflect on 19-Nov-2002 13:54 GMT | In reply to Comment 5 (Peter Gordon):
I'm not so sure I agree, sure, first impressions last, but not for too long.
otherwise, windows would never have become as big as it is today.. :)
atleast I hope that potential new users will look at the NEW hardware only.. and there, you use the OS's standard drivers and you use standard pci cards.. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 18 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 19-Nov-2002 14:02 GMT | In reply to Comment 16 (Gabriele Favrin):
Do you know of any users who have had their RDB trashed who havent deliberately
gone out and reproduced the conditions which could trigger it ( a very unlikely
sequence of events ) or through "hacking"? |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 19 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Piru on 19-Nov-2002 14:11 GMT | In reply to Comment 18 (DaveW):
You should rather ask how many (if any?) Mediator or Spider users have lost their HD without being able to determine the cause.
And yes, it could have been caused by something else too, but who knowns...
Definetely they could not link it to Elbox drivers then. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 20 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 19-Nov-2002 14:12 GMT | In reply to Comment 17 (reflect):
The difference being that Windows was forced on a hell of a lot of people
through large scale school, college and small business purchasing and people
wanted to use at home what they were taught to use at school/work/college.
Whatever way you look at it it is bad PR for Elbox within the "community"
and worse PR for the Amiga community outside of the Amiga community.
First impressions last, when you have to be proactive to get the next version/fixes
and you havent got some tech support monkey upgrading things for you. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 21 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by kessj on 19-Nov-2002 14:13 GMT | Interesting all that's been written is so negative. Let me ask a few questions.
Has Elbox done anything illegal? From what I read in their news article, NO.
Would any legal use of their driver result in harm? Based on their article, NO.
Would any illegal use of their driver result in permanent damage? "Any" is a big word here, since it's presumed the code is being modified. Presumably, no permanent damage would result, that can't be recovered, but if you're modifying their code, what can Elbox guarantee?
Has anyone - other than Elbox - tested under what conditions damage might occur?
In America, we're presumed innocent until proven guilty (unless you work for a newspaper or tabloid). We're also capitalists. If they make good products, that you want, and can afford, buy them. If not, don't.
Elbox is not the only software/hardware company that uses disabling techniques that require serious intervention to restore after you've attempted to circumvent, disable, or modify the protection scheme. The concept is fairly common in the PC world. The Amiga does not have a "registry" to disable like Windows does, so Elbox went for the RDB. There may be other options, but the principle is the same. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 22 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 19-Nov-2002 14:15 GMT | In reply to Comment 21 (kessj):
> Interesting all that's been written is so negative
Well thanks. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 23 of 111 | ANN.lu |
Message removed by CK for violation of ANN's posting rules.
Specific reason from moderator: Trolling |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 24 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by reflect on 19-Nov-2002 14:17 GMT | In reply to Comment 18 (DaveW):
I don't know anyone that has found out that their disk was fucked up by elbox drivers. But on the other hand, I'm new to the amiga, only been using it since march. Why I bought mediator? people recommended it, and they had the only solution that didn't require either PPC or looked like a hack'n'patch work.
I still think they have great hardware.
But if someone lost their disk when the computer crashed, why would they even think it was due to elbox drivers? pci.library shouldn't even have anything to do with the disks.. you are more likely to think it was the program you ran when the computer went down. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 25 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by reflect on 19-Nov-2002 14:18 GMT | In reply to Comment 18 (DaveW):
I don't know anyone that has found out that their disk was fucked up by elbox drivers. But on the other hand, I'm new to the amiga, only been using it since march. Why I bought mediator? people recommended it, and they had the only solution that didn't require either PPC or looked like a hack'n'patch work.
I still think they have great hardware.
But if someone lost their disk when the computer crashed, why would they even think it was due to elbox drivers? pci.library shouldn't even have anything to do with the disks.. you are more likely to think it was the program you ran when the computer went down. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 26 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 19-Nov-2002 14:21 GMT | In reply to Comment 25 (reflect):
Yes but my point is unless anyone has an FIRM EVIDENCE that they have
triggered this Elbox protection scheme then there is no basis for the
allegation that users have lost data because of it.
Can't someone get rid of that "turtle" guy Im fed up with reading obcenities
from him everytime I go into an ANN thread. I mean he must be all of 5 years
old. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 27 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by alan buxey on 19-Nov-2002 14:24 GMT | ..a good little article and its even pointing people to the
fact that Amigas are still around and being used.
good article? i'm I mad?? no. its a good article because it
shows that Amiga users dont sit passively around using their
machines and systems blindly.
you dont get proper Linux users just using some binary driver
without asking questions, probing and checking it out.
..imagine if nvidias x86 Linux X driver was found to do
similar things!! nVidia would be roasted, toasted and dead
by the next week.
alan |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 28 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Anonymous on 19-Nov-2002 14:43 GMT | In reply to Comment 21 (kessj):
"Interesting all that's been written is so negative. Let me ask a few questions. "
Fire away.
"Has Elbox done anything illegal?"
YES.
Releasing software which is designed to deliberately cause damage to a computer system is illegal.
"Would any legal use of their driver result in harm?"
Potentially.
Several people have demonstrated conditions under which a perfectly legal user of Elbox's drivers could find their RDB trashed. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 29 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Piru on 19-Nov-2002 14:44 GMT | In reply to Comment 21 (kessj):
> Interesting all that's been written is so negative.
There is a reason, read below.
> Has Elbox done anything illegal?
Yes. Illegal in most EU countries and United States.
> From what I read in their news article, NO.
They're lying.
> Would any legal use of their driver result in harm?
Yes.
> Based on their article, NO.
They're lying, again.
> Would any illegal use of their driver result in permanent damage?
Yes, unless you've explicitly backed up the RDB block, or you're otherwise unable to restore the trashed system. Anyway, this is theoretical, there should not BE such code in the driver in the first place!
> "Any" is a big word here, since it's presumed the code is being modified.
> Presumably, no permanent damage would result, that can't be recovered,
> but if you're modifying their code, what can Elbox guarantee?
It can happen without code modification.
And no, you can't restore the erased RDB by just installing the drive again. You need to have explicit backup of the erased RDSK block. No, it is not 5 minutes work.
Elbox is lying, yet again.
> Has anyone - other than Elbox - tested under what conditions damage might
> occur?
Yes. Here are some links:
http://flyingmice.com/squid/cgi/moobunnythread.pl/amiga?flat=79983
Possible ways to trigger the destructive routine:
http://ann.lu/comments2.cgi?show=1037284738&category=news&number=4
http://ann.lu/comments2.cgi?show=1037284738&category=news&number=14
http://ann.lu/comments2.cgi?show=1037284998&category=news&number=125
> In America, we're presumed innocent until proven guilty (unless you work for
> a newspaper or tabloid).
Is this a court room?
They've confessed existance of the destructive routine. The only reason they removed it was because it was no longer useful because everyone knew about it.
> We're also capitalists. If they make good products, that you want, and can
> afford, buy them. If not, don't.
Do you like free speech, too? Noticed what Elbox pulled when the issue was first discussed here? (They threatened CK with lawsuit, and forced him to censor a news item)
Some links:
http://ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1036967791&category=forum&start=1&87
http://ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1037223795&category=forum&start=1&73
> Elbox is not the only software/hardware company that uses disabling techniques
> that require serious intervention to restore after you've attempted to circumvent,
> disable, or modify the protection scheme. The concept is fairly common in the PC
> world.
Deliberately destructive routines are illegal in US (that's what I've been told). Company using such routine would get their ass sued within nanosecond. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 30 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by rez on 19-Nov-2002 14:45 GMT | In reply to Comment 25 (reflect):
This is not related to Amiga anyway.
This in not related to the quality of Elbox's prods.
This is related on laws that say :
1) you have not the right to do justice yourself.
2) even when someone is cheating with your prods.
3) you have the right (AND THIS IS DONE FOR THIS PARTICULIAR CASE) to disassemble, reverse all informatic prods , here in EU, and in POLAND TOO.
4) you do not have the right to hide harmfull code as if your neibourghs stole your dustbean, you have not the right to explose his car. Does it clear for you or are you to idiot to percut ? |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 31 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 19-Nov-2002 14:48 GMT | In reply to Comment 30 (rez):
Eh? How does what you just wrote relate to what reflect wrote? Why resort
to personal insults? |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 32 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by reflect on 19-Nov-2002 14:48 GMT | In reply to Comment 26 (DaveW):
> Yes but my point is unless anyone has an FIRM EVIDENCE that they have
> triggered this Elbox protection scheme then there is no basis for the
> allegation that users have lost data because of it.
Hm, the allegations I've seen has only been about potential loss.
And why does someone have to be hurt before people react? I find this better,
since now when people DID react(maybe before anyone got hurt, hard to tell)
the damaging code has been removed(and hopefully not replaced with some similar crap). I wouldn't mind if the amiga market started to look at companies like Sun Microsystems that test and make sure that their stuff is not harmful to the customers data(sure, it has happened, but they do alot of testing and if something comes up afterwards, they issue warnings and withdraw the drivers til
a solution is found). |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 33 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 19-Nov-2002 14:54 GMT | In reply to Comment 32 (reflect):
No objections to people reacting but I do have objections to those that
have not done their research properly claming that people have lost data
as an assertion without any backup evidence. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 34 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 19-Nov-2002 14:59 GMT | In reply to Comment 21 (kessj):
> Interesting all that's been written is so negative. Let me ask a few questions.
> Has Elbox done anything illegal? From what I read in their news article, NO.
Dude, get a clue, and some education. What they did _is_ illegal, period.
And, by the way, with "America" you probably meant USA. You know, America is a continent, with many countries... |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 35 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by priest on 19-Nov-2002 15:04 GMT | | What happens if one upgrades from the classic Elbox Amigabox to a pegasos or to a Amigaone system, moves TV card to the new system and as a natural reaction runs the TV card driver from the Mediator CD... |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 36 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 19-Nov-2002 15:09 GMT | In reply to Comment 35 (priest):
Do try it and let us know... |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 37 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Peter Gordon on 19-Nov-2002 15:11 GMT | In reply to Comment 35 (priest):
It won't work because it can't open pci.library. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 38 of 111 | ANN.lu |
In reply to Comment 26 (DaveW):
Message removed by CK for violation of ANN's posting rules.
Specific reason from moderator: Trolling, with broken Capslock key |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 39 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Ferry on 19-Nov-2002 15:58 GMT | In reply to Comment 26 (DaveW):
A similar situation:
You enter a bank to ask for some cash.
In the precise moment that you put your feet into the bank, a security guard puts a gun in your head...
- "Hey, what are you doing?!"
- "Oh, it's just in case that you were a bank robber"
- "But I'm NOT a robber and this is TOTALLY illegal!"
- "Yes, but I have never shooted an innocent before."
- "But what if you trip and the gun gets fired?!"
- "Oh, don't worry, this has not happened before! You can trust in me..."
To the bank manager:
- "I will sue you for this illegal abuse!!"
- "What? This is my bank and I use the protecting methods that I want. If you don´t like them, just don't come."
.....
Regarding to Elbox drivers, "never say never", I wouldn't buy any program with such a "Damocle's Sword" hanging over my data.
Ferrán |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 40 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 19-Nov-2002 16:06 GMT | In reply to Comment 26 (DaveW):
Excuse me, I told you what is possible a thousant times.
And yet you ignore it...
Anything jumps to the code accidently or cause it wants to... POOF!
Anything touches the londword holding the checksum in the resident driver...
POOF but next time you go online! |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 41 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 19-Nov-2002 16:07 GMT | In reply to Comment 39 (Ferry):
I understand that perfectly. However my point is unless a specific situation occurs
then claiming that users have lost data is erroneous. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 42 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Iggy Drougge on 19-Nov-2002 16:08 GMT | In reply to Comment 21 (kessj):
In Europe, you're presumed innocent until found guilty (unless you're a politician).
We're also communists. I forget what to write here, since it's beginning to sound silly.
Well, the closest Windows equivalent to the RDB is the MBR, the Master Boot Record. It's not as nice as the RDB, but attacking the MBR will render your drive unbootable. There was a well-known virus a few years back (when viruses were viruses, and not Javascript sent through email).
The closest Amiga equivalent to the Windows registry is ENV: and its mother who gives birth to it on each boot, the Env-archive. Deleting that wouldn't be a particularly nice thing to do, either. And it is just as illegal as deleting the RDB. What the user does with his drivers is of no business to Elbox. If he then manages to make his disk unbootable, that is his own fault. If it is through his doing, mind you. Elbox did plant code in their drivers for the sole purpose of deleting the RDB, a vital portion of the system which the majority of users haven't got backed-up (I certainly haven't, despite ten years on the Amiga). Everyone is within his full rights to do with the code contained on his computer, and Elbox have no right to punish him for what he does. Not on his own computer, since that is his, and not Elbox's property. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 43 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 19-Nov-2002 16:14 GMT | In reply to Comment 40 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Alkis
1. A thousand times? Hardly.
2. IF when/etc is not relevant to my point.
I seem to have to repeat myself a "thousand times" to get my point across: One
more time:
Unless.....the....claimant....can....prove....that....someone....has....lost....data....
as....a....result....of....using....Elbox....device...driver...."protection"....mechanisms
....then...claiming....it...is....a.....lie.
I have not said it would NEVER happen but I have said that there is no evidence
to suggest that it has happened accidentally so far. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 44 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by reflect on 19-Nov-2002 16:18 GMT | In reply to Comment 30 (rez):
@rez
if you would have read my posts here today, you wouldn't have attacked me.
read them all, and then you can reply to my post.
I know full well what elbox has done and that it is illegal, and you would have known that if you just have stopped and read the posts here. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 45 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Peter Gordon on 19-Nov-2002 16:26 GMT | In reply to Comment 43 (DaveW):
> Unless.....the....claimant....can....prove....that....someone....has....lost....data....
> as....a....result....of....using....Elbox....device...driver...."protection"....mechanisms
>....then...claiming....it...is....a.....lie.
That...is..largely...irrelevent....because...even...if..it..had...happened...in....the...past...the...user...would...not....have...had...reason...to...suspect...elboxes....drivers...and...so...would....not...have...blamed...it...on....them....either...way....it...is...irresponsible...of...elbox...to...have...done...that...and..illegal. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 46 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Peter Gordon on 19-Nov-2002 16:26 GMT | In reply to Comment 45 (Peter Gordon):
Hehehe oops... I didn't mean for it to do that, i was just immitating DaveW's "annoyed" style of writing. Oh well... |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 47 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by reflect on 19-Nov-2002 16:35 GMT | In reply to Comment 31 (DaveW):
oh, and thanks for sticking up for me like that, appreciated.
I think we need more of that here. kudos, man. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 48 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by q on 19-Nov-2002 16:41 GMT | In reply to Comment 46 (Peter Gordon):
So it was evil Peter who made this thread so difficult to read with my lousy monitor & resolution.. :-) |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 49 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by DaveW on 19-Nov-2002 16:44 GMT | In reply to Comment 46 (Peter Gordon):
No it is not largely irrelevant.
You CANNOT say that Christian HAS murdered three people when you have no
evidence to support it. Merely knowing that he has a knife and that people
might have died in the past is insufficient to prove it and make such
an allegation.
Please just read what I was replying to originally and apply your brain.
I am NOT saying that if you claim "people might have lost data in the past
because of this and not known" is wrong I am simply pointing out that the
original assertion was totally off the wall. |
|
| The Inquirer covers Elbox's "open letter" : Comment 50 of 111 | ANN.lu |
| Posted by Loki on 19-Nov-2002 17:04 GMT | In reply to Comment 34 (Fabio Alemagna):
America is NOT A CONTENTENT!
America is considered the United States of America.
The contentent is "North America"
The Americas is Noth America & South America and some islands.
Loki |
|
|
- User Menu
-
- 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.
|
