Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> Paragraph 7 covers it.
> As for "quasi-governmental agency", I don't see that at all.
> Consult an attorney specializing in software licensing if a definitive
> answer is needed.
> It is highly anyone responding here qualifies.
>
> "Would you want Ford to just walk into your garage..."
> Not relevant since there is no agreement that permits Ford to do that in
> my garage.
>

It specifies in section 7 that "You may switch off these features or not
use them."

How am I supposed to shut this "feature" off?!?

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[Adam Albright]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:03:19 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>dennis@home wrote:
>
>>
>> "Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message
>> news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> Adam Albright wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a
>>>> contract
>>>
>>>
>>> You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a legally
>>> binding contract.
>>> How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>> Your not in the UK then.. its probably not legal in the UK as its
>> conditions added after the sale which you can't do.
>
>No, I live in SoCal.
>I have no idea about the legalities of EULA's in the UK.
>I don't even know if the EULA's are the same.
>I don't know the legal ramifications of purchasing software in the USA
>for use in the UK, or even if there are any.
>I do know that until otherwise stated by the our US courts, all EULA's
>from all software companies purchased and used in the USA, are legally
>binding and are viewed as contracts.
>Frank


You just plain crazy Frank.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Disable the Windows update service.
You will need to enable the service before any Windows Update function is
used.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
<none@none.not> wrote in message news:fceh56$3rp$1@aioe.org...
> It specifies in section 7 that "You may switch off these features or not
> use them."
>
> How am I supposed to shut this "feature" off?!?
>
> --
> Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
>
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett

 

[Frank]

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:03:19 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:
>
>
>>dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message
>>>news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Adam Albright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a
>>>>>contract
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a legally
>>>>binding contract.
>>>>How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?
>>>>Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>Your not in the UK then.. its probably not legal in the UK as its
>>>conditions added after the sale which you can't do.
>>
>>No, I live in SoCal.
>>I have no idea about the legalities of EULA's in the UK.
>>I don't even know if the EULA's are the same.
>>I don't know the legal ramifications of purchasing software in the USA
>>for use in the UK, or even if there are any.
>>I do know that until otherwise stated by the our US courts, all EULA's
>
>>from all software companies purchased and used in the USA, are legally
>
>>binding and are viewed as contracts.
>>Frank
>
>
>
> You just plain crazy Frank.
>

Yep, crazy like a fox!
Frank

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Tim Slattery wrote:
>
>
> Do you read every single EULA you run into?


Yes, I do.


> Do you have time to do
> anything else?
>

Plenty. Reading a EULA takes only a few minutes, after all.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Val]

And then the unannounced updates will be forced onto your system anyway?

But wait, in the original articles, automatic updating WAS TURNED OFF!

It still stinks.

Hmmm, software installed on your computer without your cognizance,
notification, or permission sounds a lot like a definition of Malware. Why
didn't Windows Defender catch it?


Val


"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:eqRhuzw9HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Disable the Windows update service.
You will need to enable the service before any Windows Update function is
used.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
<none@none.not> wrote in message news:fceh56$3rp$1@aioe.org...
> It specifies in section 7 that "You may switch off these features or not
> use them."
>
> How am I supposed to shut this "feature" off?!?
>
> --
> Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
>
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett

 

[Val]

On second (or maybe fourth) thought, I think MS can be charged with a crime,
at least in my state (SD):

Note item (6)

http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=43-43B-1
43-43B-1. Unlawful uses of computer system. A person is guilty of unlawful
use of a computer system, software, or data if the person:

(1) Knowingly obtains the use of, accesses or exceeds
authorized access to, a computer system, or any part thereof, without the
consent of the owner

(2) Knowingly obtains the use of, accesses, or exceeds
authorized access to, a computer system, or any part thereof, without the
consent of the owner, and the access or use includes access to confidential
data or material

(3) Knowingly copies or obtains information from a
computer system, or compromises any security controls for the computer
system, or uses or discloses to another, or attempts to use or disclose to
another, the numbers, codes, passwords, or other means of access to a
computer system without the consent of the owner

(4) Knowingly disrupts, denies, or inhibits access to
software or data without the consent of the owner

(5) Knowingly disrupts, denies, or inhibits access to a
computer system, without consent of the owner

(6) Knowingly modifies, changes, or alters software or
data, without the consent of the owner

(7) Knowingly obtains use of, alters, accesses, or exceeds
authorized access to, destroys, disables, or inhibits access to a computer
system, as part of a deception for the purpose of obtaining money, property,
or services from the owner of a computer system, or any third party

(8) Knowingly destroys or disables a computer system,
without consent of the owner or

(9) Knowingly destroys or disables software or computer
data, without consent of the owner.

Source: SL 1982, ch 300, § 3 SL 1984, ch 282, § 1 SL 2002, ch 109, § 27.

And the penalty? Class 4 felony
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=43-43B-3
43-43B-3. Penalties for unlawful use of computer systems. Violations of
the provisions of § 43-43B-1 are punishable as follows:

(1) For a violation of subdivision (1), a Class 1
misdemeanor

(2) For a violation of subdivision (2) or (3), a Class 6
felony

(3) For a violation of subdivision (4), a Class 5 felony

(4) For a violation of subdivision (5) or (6), a Class 4
felony

(5) For a violation of subdivision (8) or (9), a Class 3
felony

(6) For a violation of subdivision (7), a Class 2 felony.

Source: SL 1982, ch 300, § 4 SL 1984, ch 282, § 3 SL 2002, ch 109, § 29.





"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:eqRhuzw9HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Disable the Windows update service.
You will need to enable the service before any Windows Update function is
used.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
<none@none.not> wrote in message news:fceh56$3rp$1@aioe.org...
> It specifies in section 7 that "You may switch off these features or not
> use them."
>
> How am I supposed to shut this "feature" off?!?
>
> --
> Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
>
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

If the Update Service is disabled, No.
That is not the same as turning off Microsoft/Windows Update

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"Val" <vmanes@NOSPAMrap.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MdadndVTLKCcyHbbnZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d@midco.net...
> And then the unannounced updates will be forced onto your system anyway?
>
> But wait, in the original articles, automatic updating WAS TURNED OFF!
>
> It still stinks.
>
> Hmmm, software installed on your computer without your cognizance,
> notification, or permission sounds a lot like a definition of Malware.
> Why
> didn't Windows Defender catch it?
>
>
> Val

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have already
agreed to and been notified even though notification may not have been what
customers want.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"Val" <vmanes@NOSPAMrap.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MoidndSvGarDynbbnZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@midco.net...
> On second (or maybe fourth) thought, I think MS can be charged with a
> crime,
> at least in my state (SD):
>
> Note item (6)
>
> http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=43-43B-1
> 43-43B-1. Unlawful uses of computer system. A person is guilty of
> unlawful
> use of a computer system, software, or data if the person:
>
> (1) Knowingly obtains the use of, accesses or exceeds
> authorized access to, a computer system, or any part thereof, without the
> consent of the owner
>
> (2) Knowingly obtains the use of, accesses, or exceeds
> authorized access to, a computer system, or any part thereof, without the
> consent of the owner, and the access or use includes access to
> confidential
> data or material
>
> (3) Knowingly copies or obtains information from a
> computer system, or compromises any security controls for the computer
> system, or uses or discloses to another, or attempts to use or disclose to
> another, the numbers, codes, passwords, or other means of access to a
> computer system without the consent of the owner
>
> (4) Knowingly disrupts, denies, or inhibits access to
> software or data without the consent of the owner
>
> (5) Knowingly disrupts, denies, or inhibits access to a
> computer system, without consent of the owner
>
> (6) Knowingly modifies, changes, or alters software or
> data, without the consent of the owner
>
> (7) Knowingly obtains use of, alters, accesses, or
> exceeds
> authorized access to, destroys, disables, or inhibits access to a computer
> system, as part of a deception for the purpose of obtaining money,
> property,
> or services from the owner of a computer system, or any third party
>
> (8) Knowingly destroys or disables a computer system,
> without consent of the owner or
>
> (9) Knowingly destroys or disables software or computer
> data, without consent of the owner.
>
> Source: SL 1982, ch 300, § 3 SL 1984, ch 282, § 1 SL 2002, ch 109, § 27.
>
> And the penalty? Class 4 felony
> http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=43-43B-3
> 43-43B-3. Penalties for unlawful use of computer systems. Violations of
> the provisions of § 43-43B-1 are punishable as follows:
>
> (1) For a violation of subdivision (1), a Class 1
> misdemeanor
>
> (2) For a violation of subdivision (2) or (3), a Class 6
> felony
>
> (3) For a violation of subdivision (4), a Class 5 felony
>
> (4) For a violation of subdivision (5) or (6), a Class 4
> felony
>
> (5) For a violation of subdivision (8) or (9), a Class 3
> felony
>
> (6) For a violation of subdivision (7), a Class 2 felony.
>
> Source: SL 1982, ch 300, § 4 SL 1984, ch 282, § 3 SL 2002, ch 109, § 29.

 

[John John]

I have not really followed the discussion and I am not commenting on the
EULA legalities. But...

An interesting fact in law is that you cannot have someone sign an
agreement to circumvent applicable laws and then claim indemnity. For
example, charging interest rates above a certain amount is illegal
(loansharking). Let's say the that rates above 60% P.A. are illegal.
If you loan me money and tell me outright upfront that you will charge
me 120% interest, and if I sign the loan agreement and accept your
terms, you are still guilty of loansharking and if I were to take you to
court you would lose. Even if I signed and accepted your contract you
would still lose because the contract violates the law, it is an illegal
contract.

John

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
> If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have
> already agreed to and been notified even though notification may not
> have been what customers want.
>

 

[~greg]

"Silicon neuron" <sili@gmail.com> wrote in message news:46e8fcec@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1
>
> By Scott Dunn
>
> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users' knowledge, even when the users have turned off
> auto-updates.


I'm sorry that I don't have time to read this whole thread,
so I hope that these two questions haven't been asked
in it before.

Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on
their auto-updates thingy. And I always have to remind
myself to turn it off.

So if someone wasn't aware of this, then they could
easily get the impression, on the next update-tuesday,
that Microsoft was patching files even though he
(thought he) had turned off auto-updates,
- being unaware that it had been silently turned on.

(That's a question, phrased as the answer
But I don't suppose that is the issue here.)

In any case, there is a difference between Windows update,
and the update service.

I keep the whole service disabled (for a couple of reasons)
and enable it by script only when I feel like getting Windows
updates (--because Microsoft wont give updates
unless that service is running.)
Then I turn that service off, again, too.

If Microsoft is actually going around all services,
then that is very bad thing indeed. It would make it
indistinguishable from maleware. A root-kit, or something.
And there are laws against that kind of thing.
Just because MS happen to be a particular kind
of software, an OS, should not make any difference
in this. Or that's what I think anyway.

~greg

 

[Alias]

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message
>>> news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> Adam Albright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a
>>>>> contract
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a
>>>> legally binding contract.
>>>> How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>> Your not in the UK then..
>>
>>
>> Fortunately for Europe and unfortunately for California, Frank lives
>> in Southern California, the center of scams, fraud and spam.
>
> Well, that's just another one of your stupid personal insults and
> another outright lie from you.

Not an insult, a fact. Not a lie, a fact.
>>
>>> its probably not legal in the UK as its conditions added after the
>>> sale which you can't do.
>>
>>
>> Now you've done it, you used logic and facts and Frank will do what he
>> always does: insult you and call you a liar. Thinking he's cute and
>> clever, he will throw in some blustering for good measure.
>
> Try reading my answer to him you dimwitted moron liar.
> Frank

More lies, insults and bluster. What would Jesus say of your boorish
behavior, Frankie Boy?

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

 

[PA Bear]

Your Automatic Update settings do NOT control the automatic updating of the
Windows Update software, Val.
--
~PA Bear

Val wrote:
> And then the unannounced updates will be forced onto your system anyway?
>
> But wait, in the original articles, automatic updating WAS TURNED OFF!
>
> It still stinks.
>
> Hmmm, software installed on your computer without your cognizance,
> notification, or permission sounds a lot like a definition of Malware.
> Why
> didn't Windows Defender catch it?
>
>
> Val
>
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eqRhuzw9HHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Disable the Windows update service.
> You will need to enable the service before any Windows Update function is
> used.
>
>
> "The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
> <none@none.not> wrote in message news:fceh56$3rp$1@aioe.org...
>> It specifies in section 7 that "You may switch off these features or not
>> use them."
>>
>> How am I supposed to shut this "feature" off?!?
>>
>> --
>> Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
>> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
>>
>> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on free
>> speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
>> creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
>> rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
>> - Maura Corbett

 

[PA Bear]

> I'm sorry that I don't have time to read this whole thread,
> so I hope that these two questions haven't been asked
> in it before.

Then perhaps you should take the time to read the entire thread. Is our
time less valuable than yours?

> Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on
> their auto-updates thingy. And I always have to remind
> myself to turn it off.

Are you saying that if you disable Automatic Updates and then update via
Windows Update website, Automatic Updates is re-enabled or the Automatic
Update /service/ is turned on?
--
~PA Bear

~greg wrote:
> "Silicon neuron" <sili@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46e8fcec@newsgate.x-privat.org...
>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1
>>
>> By Scott Dunn
>>
>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'
>> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
>
>
> I'm sorry that I don't have time to read this whole thread,
> so I hope that these two questions haven't been asked
> in it before.
>
> Whenever I get Windows updates, Microsoft turns on
> their auto-updates thingy. And I always have to remind
> myself to turn it off.
>
> So if someone wasn't aware of this, then they could
> easily get the impression, on the next update-tuesday,
> that Microsoft was patching files even though he
> (thought he) had turned off auto-updates,
> - being unaware that it had been silently turned on.
>
> (That's a question, phrased as the answer
> But I don't suppose that is the issue here.)
>
> In any case, there is a difference between Windows update,
> and the update service.
>
> I keep the whole service disabled (for a couple of reasons)
> and enable it by script only when I feel like getting Windows
> updates (--because Microsoft wont give updates
> unless that service is running.)
> Then I turn that service off, again, too.
>
> If Microsoft is actually going around all services,
> then that is very bad thing indeed. It would make it
> indistinguishable from maleware. A root-kit, or something.
> And there are laws against that kind of thing.
> Just because MS happen to be a particular kind
> of software, an OS, should not make any difference
> in this. Or that's what I think anyway.
>
> ~greg

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:

> Frank wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>>
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message
>>>> news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>> Adam Albright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a
>>>>>> contract
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a
>>>>> legally binding contract.
>>>>> How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?
>>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your not in the UK then..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fortunately for Europe and unfortunately for California, Frank lives
>>> in Southern California, the center of scams, fraud and spam.
>>
>>
>> Well, that's just another one of your stupid personal insults and
>> another outright lie from you.
>
>
> Not an insult, a fact. Not a lie, a fact.
>
>>>
>>>> its probably not legal in the UK as its conditions added after the
>>>> sale which you can't do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now you've done it, you used logic and facts and Frank will do what
>>> he always does: insult you and call you a liar. Thinking he's cute
>>> and clever, he will throw in some blustering for good measure.
>>
>>
>> Try reading my answer to him you dimwitted moron liar.
>> Frank
>
>
> More lies, insults and bluster. What would Jesus say of your boorish
> behavior, Frankie Boy?
>

Why don't you try asking Him yourself if you're so very interested in
His opinion, mr atheist?

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> If the Update Service is disabled, No.
> That is not the same as turning off Microsoft/Windows Update
>

Where does it state this, JJ? Where does it state that those files will
not update on a machine if the WU service is disabled?

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[Adam Albright]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:47:02 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>As has been pointed out, paragraph 7 in the agreement.
>If you accepted the agreement which is necessary for use, you have already
>agreed to and been notified even though notification may not have been what
>customers want.

Jupiter, you're already seen as a big enough idiot without now trying
to play attorney and removing all doubt.

 

[Alias]

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Adam Albright wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a
>>>>>>> contract
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a
>>>>>> legally binding contract.
>>>>>> How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?
>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your not in the UK then..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately for Europe and unfortunately for California, Frank lives
>>>> in Southern California, the center of scams, fraud and spam.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that's just another one of your stupid personal insults and
>>> another outright lie from you.
>>
>>
>> Not an insult, a fact. Not a lie, a fact.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> its probably not legal in the UK as its conditions added after the
>>>>> sale which you can't do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now you've done it, you used logic and facts and Frank will do what
>>>> he always does: insult you and call you a liar. Thinking he's cute
>>>> and clever, he will throw in some blustering for good measure.
>>>
>>>
>>> Try reading my answer to him you dimwitted moron liar.
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>> More lies, insults and bluster. What would Jesus say of your boorish
>> behavior, Frankie Boy?
>>
>
> Why don't you try asking Him yourself if you're so very interested in
> His opinion, mr atheist?

How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died
hundreds of years ago? You believe in channeling too? I asked YOU what
YOU think he would think. Course to understand that, you would have to
be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.

--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:

>
> How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died
> hundreds of years ago?

Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find the
answer.

You believe in channeling too?

Channeling what?

I asked YOU what
> YOU think he would think.

Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on earth
would you care what He thinks, huh?

Course to understand that, you would have to
> be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.

Sorry pal!
You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking.
Try again, ok?
Frank

 

[Alias]

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>>
>> How can I ask someone who no one can prove even existed and who died
>> hundreds of years ago?
>
> Well, you're the one asking the question so it's up to you to find the
> answer.

I was asking YOU.

>
> You believe in channeling too?
>
> Channeling what?

Figures you wouldn't understand. Look it up.

>
> I asked YOU what
>> YOU think he would think.
>
> Again, ask Him directly. If you don't believe in Him then why on earth
> would you care what He thinks, huh?

I asked you what YOU think. Is that question too complicated for you?

>
> Course to understand that, you would have to
>> be capable of logic and understanding a simple question.
>
> Sorry pal!
> You're not that smart or quick, mentally speaking.
> Try again, ok?
> Frank

You've just proved how slow you are. What's pathetic is that you don't
even realize it.
--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes