On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 01:12:57 GMT, InternetSecurity101
The issue of burden of proof was already discussed at length a fewQuote:>To the trolls that replied being negative about my post
>concerning Zone Alarm .vs BlackICE Defender:
> You said you wanted proof right? Ok, I have some serious
>stuff for you trolls:
>Go to www.networkice.com and go through their whole site
>looking for excerpts concerning Zone Alarm. Now, trod
>back to Zone Labs and point them to these pages that you
>found....if you find them, for I think you are not that smart
>in the first place!
months ago when you went into your spasm of unsubstantiated accusations
against ZoneAlarm, and also several months before that when you made
wild accusations about so-called obvious security holes in Conseal PC
Since it is impossible to prove the negative existence of something, it
is the responsibility of the accuser to show burden of proof for the
evidence supporting his claims. If you are seriously going to convince
anyone of your point of view, it is your responsibility to explicitly
show the data supporting your claims. Just giving a vague pointer of "go
to www.networkice.com" doesn't prove anything, and is downright lazy.
What SPECIFIC page(s) on that website explicitly show reproduceable
evidence for your accusations?
You might as well claim to have proof of Bigfoot's existence and vaguely
point to some website, saying that it's up to everyone else to search
through that website for your proof. Of course, if your proof doesn't
exist, they'll never find it and you'll still continue to say that the
evidence is on that website somewhere.
Well that's not the way burden of proof is supposed to work, so where
specifically is your proof?
If you can indeed point the way to explicit evidence of ZoneAlarm
intentionally harming its users, I'm sure everyone interested in getting
at the truth would be very grateful, myself included. However, if no
such evidence exists you should stop making a greater fool of yourself
than you already have.
Before you once again call me a ZoneLabs employee, let me restate once
again that I have no use for ZoneAlarm since I use Conseal PC Firewall
for my Win 9x machine, and the original AtGuard (not that piece of
bloatware *Norton Internet Security) for my Win 2000 machine. Both
of those work just fine, so I see no reason to bother switching.
^^Quote:>I BET NOT ONE OF THESE TROLLS WILL DO THIS, AND I KNOW THEY WILL GIVE
>SOME LAME-ASS EXCUSE WHY THEY DIDN'T, OR WILL COME BACK WITH SOME
>STUPID REPLY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC ABOVE. OH, LET ME
>NOT FORGET THE DUMB DUMB "REDIRECTED QUESTIONS" THEY WILL SUBMIT
>EITHER CONCERNING THIS POST. THEY DO THIS ALL THE TIME.
>Zone Labs, we await your LEGAL STANCE on this issue.
Do you always refer to yourself in the plural? Oh wait, you're probably
thinking of the royal "we," as in the English royal family saying "We
are not amused." You must be getting visions of grandeur again.
^^^^Quote:>NetworkICE, go get'em! (HooRAH!)
LOL! Yeah right. (see below)
On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:53:20 GMT, InternetSecurity101
> With a sad heart, I must leave this advertising news group.
What was that again? The third or fourth "goodbye" message you hadQuote:> With this, I lay to rest the knowledge that I have given, for the
>good, and not the bad. May the good prevail over the evil, and that
>one day, you shall see the light through your eye coins.
>"...seek and ye shall find. Find, and thou should ask the questions of
>truth and justice for all mankind." - Internet Security 101
>Goodbye my friends.....
posted so far? And you even had to add some ridiculously melodramatic
self-quote. Your "goodbye" messages are turning into some pretty funny
entertainment seeing how you keep coming back. LOL!