IE9 confirmed safest browser - again!

[Core]

What a terrific post. Really gave me insight into where you're coming from, and some food for thought for the future. Thanks.

 

[Digerati]

No problems Clifford. We're good.

What a terrific post. Really gave me insight into where you're coming from, and some food for thought for the future. Thanks.

Well, I sure would like to say, "Thanks and you are welcome! ", but I can't be sure who, or which post, you are referring to. I hope mine. I would like to think we are good too.

******

No, no behind the scenes thing, I was strictly seeing a common thought in things both Core and I brought up

No. That's BS. What are you doing, TM? This is getting sadder and sadder. Core had 1 post before you were "compelled" to start bashing, and it, nor any of his later posts had anything to do with Microsoft policies. I don't understand this obfuscation?

Why did you say some of "us" felt compelled"? Why did you attempt to make everyone believe you spoke for several members of the staff? Not cool! Clifford had not even joined the thread when you "felt compelled" to bash Microsoft. And you have yet to say why you felt compelled to launch this tirade against Microsoft's "business decisions" - when the topic was about IE9 security - developed by the IE9 development team of programmers, not boardroom execs.

I made it CLEAR in my first post that the browser of choice did not matter - if the user (always the weakest link) did all the normal stuff needed to keep any computer secure.

I did not push IE. I did not bash any alternative. I did not tell anyone to change browsers. I said users who switched to an alternative because they thought (or were informed) the alternatives were more secure "might want to reconsider" their choice, and advisors "re-evaluate" their recommendations because security is "no longer" a valid reason for using an alternative browser.

What in that "compelled" you to hijack my thread to launch your Microsoft tirade?

You carry a site badge. It is important to note in the eyes of visitors you represent the site - whether you mean to or not. Just as some believe I represent Microsoft by displaying my MVP - whether I like it or not. You come in and take over a thread driving it where you want to go. Even going so far as to inform the OP we not talking about his topic anymore! We weren't because YOU didn't want to hear it!

You hijacked my thread for your own agenda, implied (and still imply) you were speaking for the many, and refused to allow the discussion to stay on-topic. That's dictating, not moderating. And you make no bones about it either. You decided you didn't want to talk about security at all so YOU announced to everyone that we were now talking about "business mentality". It was apparent, even after several futile attempts on my part to stay focused on security, that there was no way YOU, TrainableMan, were going to allow the discussion to focus on browser security - you wanted to trash Microsoft and you were determined to do it.

How did that help anyone? How did that help the flow of that thread? Or encourage participation in the discussion by others?

You know what is even more sad and pathetic, TrainableMan? You are still at it! You just had to criticize Microsoft policies again when you entered this thread - another thread that has nothing to do with Microsoft policies. Why not just put, "I hate Microsoft!" in your signature? Seriously.

And for the record, I apologized for allowing my disgust and disappointment to show through in my posts. The "analogy" presented comparing murderous terrorists who proudly take credit for killing children in front of their classmates to a few company executives trying to earn money for their shareholders is still callus, insensitive, and offensive. You didn't apologize for your poor choice of an analogy, but rather attempted to rationalize it by comparing the desire for a decent company to earn profits (some call that "Free Enterprise" - a major component in free, democratic societies) to the guns of heinous, lawless killers of brutally suppressed women and children. And excuse me for saying they dragged her out of her "school", instead of her school "van" - then shot her in front of her classmates. I obviously need to check my facts better before posting or I'm sure to get called out on that.

Wow.

I'd ask that this thread be closed too but I suspect I've now compelled more things to blame on Microsoft.



My apologies to Core, Clifford and others reading. TM, I truly respect your technical knowledge when helping folks. I hope one day you realize corporate greed with good intent (for the many, not just the few) is not an evil thing. And that corporate greed in the boardrooms of corporate offices, and particularly Microsoft boardrooms, does not reflect on the 100,000s of good people working hard, developing excellent MS products. Then maybe you will bash when due, and not every time you feel "compelled" to by ill-conceived personal biases. Sorry - I tried. Consider me successfully run off.

 

[TrainableMan]

What can I say, I felt an immediate kinship with how I interpreted Core's question to you (i read it sarcastic and I don't believe I was wrong), so the "us" was Core and I, not W7forums, and when Clifford later added his post he definitely fit in that "us" (IMO). There is much more to being a good browser than security and so I don't think you can, nor should limit the conversation to just security.

Even here, in an off-topic discussion thread, you want to narrowly define what can and can't be considered. Your posts often evoke feeling in individuals beyond just the narrow topic you want to convey (and yes I'm generalizing again because I know from complaints about your posts and from my own personal feelings in the past). I respect your knowledge of Microsoft products and the user agreements and am not trying to "run you off" but I can still have a different opinion about things and won't be bullied into keeping it to myself when I think it matters.

So Mods can close as many of your threads as you want but you are pretty much the only one participating than can no longer speak once it's closed.

 

[Digerati]

I can still have a different opinion about things and won't be bullied into keeping it to myself when I think it matters.

You made that clear when you announced you were taking the topic off-topic to what YOU wanted to talk about: bashing Microsoft business decisions and squelching anything to do with browser security. But note, I'm the bully! ???

So Mods can close as many of your threads as you want but you are pretty much the only one participating than can no longer speak once it's closed.

Yeah, I have seen cases where you close a thread, then you and sometimes others pile it on. I suspect at least some of the others don't realize it is closed when it appears to still be opened. But if you closed it, you know.

Even here, in an off-topic discussion thread, you want to narrowly define what can and can't be considered

Well, you stifled the discussion on browser security in the Security forum as you were compelled to bash Microsoft. And apparently I can't discuss an off-topic subject in this forum either without you throwing in more Microsoft criticisms. Narrowly defined? You make it clear the topic doesn't mater - you are going to bash MS - and think nothing of it.

And you can speak for Clifford and others, because you have a kinship for them - before they even express their thoughts? Wow. And it is clear you feel you have had no part in this whole thing turning sour. I may be a thorn in your side, but I am not the problem here. So, I see no need or value discussing this further with you, or to waste anymore of anyone's time. And this time, I will unsubscribe so I don't feel the need to respond to any reply notifications in my inbox. So pile on.

 

[TrainableMan]

Let's agree to disagree.

Since it's all a continuation anyway (and finished I believe) I just merged this all into the original thread.