On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>
> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
> *you* want to convey <shrug>.

I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
honest man would not do that. I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.

On 11 Apr 2022, David Brooks wrote
(in article <VD%4K.552141$sb1.373876@fx11.ams1>):

> On 11/04/2022 19:28, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > David Brooks wrote :
> > > On 11/04/2022 12:43, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > > > After serious thinking David Brooks wrote :
> > > > > On 10/04/2022 23:59, David Brooks adjusted his post to read:-
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've just run another check using EasyFind and there are STILL
> > > > > > items from Etrecheck left active on my machine.
> > > > >
> > > > > *I have now deleted them*.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here they are in my Waste Bin! https://ibb.co/7kr7mNK
> > > > >
> > > > > Something odd about this!
> > > >
> > > > Maybe that's the point. They gave you the opportunity to decide for
> > > > yourself whether or not you wanted to keep them.
> > >
> > > You don't often miss the point.
> > >
> > > You did this time. :-(
> >
> > There was a point?
> >
> > You should warn me when you do something different.
>
> Of course. To both.
>
> Who did you mean by "They"?
>
> The EtreCheck removal process ignores the fact that hidden files will be
> left on the host computer.

they’re not hidden, arsenugget.
> A normal user would be completely unaware
> that files associated with EtreCheck will remain in place.

no-one else cares.

Further, most (all?) other apps leave stuff in various places. It’s been
years since I nuked everything Adobe from this system, but I’m still
finding Adobe files in various places. If I care, I nuke ‘em when I see
‘em. I usually don’t care. That would be because I, unlike you, am not a
paranoid freak.
>
> No opportunity is given to "decide for yourself" as you put it.

sure there is. Do a search for EtreCheck. Go to the Terminal and list files,
including invisble files. Many other ways, all available for anyone who cares
enough to have a look. But usually no-one cares.

On Apr 11, 2022 at 12:55:31 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
<TI%4K.552171$sb1.549689@fx11.ams1>:

> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>
>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>
> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
> honest man would not do that.

If you are not a happy customer, why not refund your money?

> I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.

How would that even happen? What makes you suspect that?

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>
>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>
> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
> honest man would not do that. I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.

Sigh... it never ends.

I'm suggesting that YOU compose the email sent to JD, asking the
questions YOU want answered and Glasser, if he agrees, will send it.

It happens that David Brooks formulated :
> On 11/04/2022 19:28, FromTheRafters wrote:
>> David Brooks wrote :
>>> On 11/04/2022 12:43, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>> After serious thinking David Brooks wrote :
>>>>> On 10/04/2022 23:59, David Brooks adjusted his post to read:-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've just run another check using EasyFind and there are STILL items
>>>>>> from Etrecheck left active on my machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> *I have now deleted them*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here they are in my Waste Bin!  https://ibb.co/7kr7mNK
>>>>>
>>>>> Something odd about this!
>>>>
>>>> Maybe that's the point. They gave you the opportunity to decide for
>>>> yourself whether or not you wanted to keep them.
>>>
>>> You don't often miss the point.
>>>
>>> You did this time. :-(
>>
>> There was a point?
>>
>> You should warn me when you do something different.
>
> Of course. To both.
>
> Who did you mean by "They"?
>
> The EtreCheck removal process ignores the fact that hidden files will be left
> on the host computer. A normal user would be completely unaware that files
> associated with EtreCheck will remain in place.
> No opportunity is given to "decide for yourself" as you put it.

If the files are still there, you have the choice. If they are not, you
just have to live with not having them.

On 11/04/2022 21:58, Steve Carroll wrote:
> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>>
>>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>>
>> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
>> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
>> honest man would not do that. I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
>> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
>
> Sigh... it never ends.
>
> I'm suggesting that YOU compose the email sent to JD, asking the
> questions YOU want answered and Glasser, if he agrees, will send it.

I have written directly to JD on many occasions previously.

Sadly, he fails to respond, even when I write to try to help him, viz:-

https://ibb.co/mJXpm0c

HTH

--
David

On 11/04/2022 22:24, FromTheRafters wrote:
> It happens that David Brooks formulated :
>> On 11/04/2022 19:28, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>> David Brooks wrote :
>>>> On 11/04/2022 12:43, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>> After serious thinking David Brooks wrote :
>>>>>> On 10/04/2022 23:59, David Brooks adjusted his post to read:-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've just run another check using EasyFind and there are STILL
>>>>>>> items from Etrecheck left active on my machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I have now deleted them*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here they are in my Waste Bin!  https://ibb.co/7kr7mNK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something odd about this!
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe that's the point. They gave you the opportunity to decide for
>>>>> yourself whether or not you wanted to keep them.
>>>>
>>>> You don't often miss the point.
>>>>
>>>> You did this time. :-(
>>>
>>> There was a point?
>>>
>>> You should warn me when you do something different.
>>
>> Of course. To both.
>>
>> *Who did you mean* by "They"?
>>
>> The EtreCheck removal process ignores the fact that hidden files will
>> be left on the host computer. A normal user would be completely
>> unaware that files associated with EtreCheck will remain in place.
>> No opportunity is given to "decide for yourself" as you put it.
>
> If the files are still there, you have the choice. If they are not, you
> just have to live with not having them.

Methinks you are being deliberately obtuse as is your want.<shrug>

If one is /unaware/ of the presence of hidden files there is NO choice.

=

OLAS

Cardinal Gives Cutest Little Goodbye To The Woman Who Rescued Him

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=489180708750286&extid=NS-UNK-UNK-UNK-UNK_GK0T-GK1C&ref=sharing

On 11/04/2022 20:59, Snit wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2022 at 12:55:31 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
> <TI%4K.552171$sb1.549689@fx11.ams1>:
>
>> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>>
>>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>>
>> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
>> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
>> honest man would not do that.
>
> If you are not a happy customer, why not refund your money?

Businesses don't usually do that three months after one has bought a
product.

>> I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
>> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
>
> How would that even happen? What makes you suspect that?

I'm still unsure. It's what New York cops call a 'hinky' feeling.

In article <hX15K.32378$4c1.8919@fx13.ams1>, David Brooks
<BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> product.
>
> >> I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
> >> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
> >
> > How would that even happen? What makes you suspect that?
>
> I'm still unsure. It's what New York cops call a 'hinky' feeling.

new york cops do not use the word 'hinky'.

On Apr 11, 2022 at 1:58:59 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
<t324qj$vdp$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:

> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>>
>>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>>
>> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
>> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
>> honest man would not do that. I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
>> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
>
> Sigh... it never ends.

You need for drama does not. Agree.

> I'm suggesting that YOU compose the email sent to JD, asking the
> questions YOU want answered and Glasser, if he agrees, will send it.

Why not offer to send it yourself?

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Apr 11, 2022 at 3:07:48 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
<UE15K.57939$3b1.40537@fx14.ams1>:

> On 11/04/2022 21:58, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>>>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>>>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>>>
>>> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
>>> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
>>> honest man would not do that. I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
>>> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
>>
>> Sigh... it never ends.
>>
>> I'm suggesting that YOU compose the email sent to JD, asking the
>> questions YOU want answered and Glasser, if he agrees, will send it.
>
>
> I have written directly to JD on many occasions previously.
>
> Sadly, he fails to respond, even when I write to try to help him, viz:-
>
> https://ibb.co/mJXpm0c
>
> HTH

If you get no responses on that type of email it sounds like he has poor
support.

Even if he does not know he should say that... and then he can explain where
the app gets the info from.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Apr 11, 2022 at 3:27:25 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
<hX15K.32378$4c1.8919@fx13.ams1>:

> On 11/04/2022 20:59, Snit wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 2022 at 12:55:31 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
>> <TI%4K.552171$sb1.549689@fx11.ams1>:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>>>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>>>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>>>
>>> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
>>> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
>>> honest man would not do that.
>>
>> If you are not a happy customer, why not refund your money?
>
> Businesses don't usually do that three months after one has bought a
> product.

I do not see it as dishonest for him to do so... I can see where he could have
argued he did not want to, but the fact he did seems a good thing.

>>> I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
>>> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
>>
>> How would that even happen? What makes you suspect that?
>
> I'm still unsure. It's what New York cops call a 'hinky' feeling.

Fair enough.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2022-04-11, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2022 at 1:58:59 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
><t324qj$vdp$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>>>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>>>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>>>
>>> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
>>> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
>>> honest man would not do that. I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
>>> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
>>
>> Sigh... it never ends.
>
> You need for drama does not. Agree.
>
>> I'm suggesting that YOU compose the email sent to JD, asking the
>> questions YOU want answered and Glasser, if he agrees, will send it.
>
> Why not offer to send it yourself?

You're his 'friend', despite your unwillingness to help him with things
he's bothered by the most. He's made it clear I'm his enemy, despite the
fact that I've often helped him with those things. Why are you trying to
shine the light elsewhere? Why don't you just help the poor fool so he
can get some kind of peace?

On Apr 11, 2022 at 4:46:32 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
<t32ekn$3pr$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:

> On 2022-04-11, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 2022 at 1:58:59 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
>> <t324qj$vdp$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>>>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>>>>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>>>>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
>>>> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
>>>> honest man would not do that. I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
>>>> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
>>>
>>> Sigh... it never ends.
>>
>> You need for drama does not. Agree.
>>
>>> I'm suggesting that YOU compose the email sent to JD, asking the
>>> questions YOU want answered and Glasser, if he agrees, will send it.
>>
>> Why not offer to send it yourself?
>
> You're his 'friend'

One need not be a friend to do something like this. You whined you were seen
as an enemy. You can work to change that if you want.

> , despite your unwillingness to help him with things
> he's bothered by the most. He's made it clear I'm his enemy, despite the
> fact that I've often helped him with those things. Why are you trying to
> shine the light elsewhere? Why don't you just help the poor fool so he
> can get some kind of peace?

More of your drama.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 21:58, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>>>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>>>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>>>
>>> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
>>> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
>>> honest man would not do that. I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
>>> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
>>
>> Sigh... it never ends.
>>
>> I'm suggesting that YOU compose the email sent to JD, asking the
>> questions YOU want answered and Glasser, if he agrees, will send it.
>
>
> I have written directly to JD on many occasions previously.
>
> Sadly, he fails to respond

That's why I suggested your 'friend' help here. Just write what you want
and let Glasser decide then. Seems like you don't really want help
<shrug>.

On 2022-04-11, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2022 at 4:46:32 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
><t32ekn$3pr$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> On 2022-04-11, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 2022 at 1:58:59 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
>>> <t324qj$vdp$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>>>>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>>>>>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>>>>>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
>>>>> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
>>>>> honest man would not do that. I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
>>>>> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
>>>>
>>>> Sigh... it never ends.
>>>
>>> You need for drama does not. Agree.
>>>
>>>> I'm suggesting that YOU compose the email sent to JD, asking the
>>>> questions YOU want answered and Glasser, if he agrees, will send it.
>>>
>>> Why not offer to send it yourself?
>>
>> You're his 'friend'
>
> One need not be a friend to do something like this.

One would expect his 'friend' would do something like this.

> You whined you were seen as an enemy.

Please. I'm clearly seen as his enemy, you don't write the kinds of
things he's written to and about me to anyone but an enemy. I'm fine
with it, I don't have friends like him, I wouldn't want one.

> You can work to change that if you want.

When I help he ignores it, as if he's driven by an agenda. That you
won't help might mean you're driven by the same agenda. This may all be
a game you two are playing for attention, pathetic as that would be.

>> , despite your unwillingness to help him with things
>> he's bothered by the most. He's made it clear I'm his enemy, despite the
>> fact that I've often helped him with those things. Why are you trying to
>> shine the light elsewhere? Why don't you just help the poor fool so he
>> can get some kind of peace?
>
> More of your drama.

Shining the light onto me doesn't work, it just cements the idea you're
pursuing an agenda. A real friend would help him.

On Apr 11, 2022 at 4:56:42 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
<t32f7q$3pr$3@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:

> On 2022-04-11, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 2022 at 4:46:32 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
>> <t32ekn$3pr$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>>> On 2022-04-11, Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 11, 2022 at 1:58:59 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
>>>> <t324qj$vdp$1@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>>>>>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>>>>>>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>>>>>>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
>>>>>> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
>>>>>> honest man would not do that. I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
>>>>>> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sigh... it never ends.
>>>>
>>>> You need for drama does not. Agree.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm suggesting that YOU compose the email sent to JD, asking the
>>>>> questions YOU want answered and Glasser, if he agrees, will send it.
>>>>
>>>> Why not offer to send it yourself?
>>>
>>> You're his 'friend'
>>
>> One need not be a friend to do something like this.
>
> One would expect his 'friend' would do something like this.

Your knowledge of friendship is lacking.
>
>> You whined you were seen as an enemy.
>
> Please. I'm clearly seen as his enemy,

Why not try to stop acting as one?

> you don't write the kinds of
> things he's written to and about me to anyone but an enemy. I'm fine
> with it, I don't have friends like him, I wouldn't want one.

Do you have any friends at all?

>> You can work to change that if you want.
>
> When I help he ignores it,

No, he responds to your drama and games and other nonsense. He does not ignore
it.

> as if he's driven by an agenda. That you
> won't help might mean you're driven by the same agenda. This may all be
> a game you two are playing for attention, pathetic as that would be.

More of your insane drama. Do you understand how bizarre it is?

>>> , despite your unwillingness to help him with things
>>> he's bothered by the most. He's made it clear I'm his enemy, despite the
>>> fact that I've often helped him with those things. Why are you trying to
>>> shine the light elsewhere? Why don't you just help the poor fool so he
>>> can get some kind of peace?
>>
>> More of your drama.
>
> Shining the light onto me doesn't work, it just cements the idea you're
> pursuing an agenda. A real friend would help him.

And yet MORE of your drama. Is there a chance you will ever stop pushing such
bizarre nonsense?

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On Apr 11, 2022 at 4:49:01 PM MST, "Steve Carroll" wrote
<t32epd$3pr$2@fretwizzer.eternal-september.org>:

> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 21:58, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>>>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>>>>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>>>>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
>>>> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
>>>> honest man would not do that. I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
>>>> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
>>>
>>> Sigh... it never ends.
>>>
>>> I'm suggesting that YOU compose the email sent to JD, asking the
>>> questions YOU want answered and Glasser, if he agrees, will send it.
>>
>>
>> I have written directly to JD on many occasions previously.
>>
>> Sadly, he fails to respond
>
> That's why I suggested your 'friend' help here. Just write what you want
> and let Glasser decide then. Seems like you don't really want help
> <shrug>.

And more of your drama. You are addicted.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 12/04/2022 00:29, Snit wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2022 at 3:07:48 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
> <UE15K.57939$3b1.40537@fx14.ams1>:
>
>> On 11/04/2022 21:58, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2022 20:38, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-11, David Brooks <BDB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>>>>>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you write it up and if he's OK with the wording, go from
>>>>> there? You're asking for his time, use less of it and convey the words
>>>>> *you* want to convey <shrug>.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a 'techie'. I've already rattled JD's cage sufficiently for him
>>>> to refund the price I paid for his software. Logic tells me that an
>>>> honest man would not do that. I suspect that the use of EtreCheck
>>>> enables JD to manipulate the ASC forum posts.
>>>
>>> Sigh... it never ends.
>>>
>>> I'm suggesting that YOU compose the email sent to JD, asking the
>>> questions YOU want answered and Glasser, if he agrees, will send it.
>>
>>
>> I have written directly to JD on many occasions previously.
>>
>> Sadly, he fails to respond, even when I write to try to help him, viz:-
>>
>> https://ibb.co/mJXpm0c
>>
>> HTH
>
> If you get no responses on that type of email it sounds like he has poor
> support.

As far as I'm aware, he's a one-man-band. Do you see him on LinkedIn?

> Even if he does not know he should say that... and then he can explain where
> the app gets the info from.

I'm glad you agree!

On 11/04/2022 20:53, Snit wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2022 at 12:18:38 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
> <ja%4K.57628$3b1.33516@fx14.ams1>:
>
>> On 11/04/2022 19:17, Snit wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 2022 at 11:06:25 AM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
>>> <F6_4K.392826$Lc1.290695@fx12.ams1>:
>>>
>>>> On 11/04/2022 16:51, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 11, 2022 at 8:29:53 AM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
>>>>> <SPX4K.392678$Lc1.310170@fx12.ams1>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 16:14, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 2022 at 2:14:53 AM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
>>>>>>> <ikS4K.551384$sb1.275030@fx11.ams1>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/04/2022 00:54, Snit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 2022 at 4:07:31 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
>>>>>>>>> <UqJ4K.551383$sb1.72491@fx11.ams1>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/04/2022 23:59, David Brooks adjusted his post to read:-
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've just run another check using EasyFind and there are STILL items
>>>>>>>>>>> from Etrecheck left active on my machine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *I have now deleted them*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here they are in my Waste Bin! https://ibb.co/7kr7mNK
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Something odd about this!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What apps do not leave such things behind?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By that comment you appear to think that they are legitimate!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They MUST be there for a reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHAT reason?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I gave some: if and when you reinstall an app you might want the same
>>>>>>> preferences, for example. In other cases it is a file that allows you to keep
>>>>>>> your license. There are others which are placed in specific folders so the OS
>>>>>>> knows how to do a specific thing, and those should be removed -- but to leave
>>>>>>> them does no real harm. They tend to be tiny and harmless. If there are
>>>>>>> drivers and the like left behind, though, that can be an issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You will no doubt have the same files hidden away on YOUR computer as
>>>>>> you have also downloaded EtreCheck.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if they actually ARE nefarious?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any app that does not leave such files behind? And are they launched
>>>>> or used in any way?
>>>>
>>>> *NO* application should leave malware hidden on a computer.
>>>
>>> Agreed... but we were talking files in general. Are there any apps that do not
>>> leave any behind? There may be... I have not done any deep checks.
>>
>> I don't wish to argue with you. It is EtreCheck I have been discussing.
>
> I understand that. But part of the question, if I understand correctly, is if
> EtreCheck is doing something uncommon (no less untoward). So far I have seen
> no evidence it is doing either.

EtreCheck was ousted from the Apple App store. It is no longer available
there.

>>>>>> Do you care enough to contact the developer to ask why they are still on
>>>>>> your computer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not without reason.
>>>>
>>>> The reason is simply to clarify /why/ such files are left behind after
>>>> the product has supposedly been removed from a computer.
>>>
>>> It is the way macOS works. The standard uninstall method is to just drag the
>>> file from the Applications folder. Some small files that are saved elsewhere
>>> are not removed.
>>
>> You haven't been paying attention my friend! EtreCheck is not an proper
>> 'application' and is NOT installed!

Mike Easter claimed that the software was NOT installed per se.

> Not sure what you mean by a "proper" application. As far as installation -- it
> installs the way many macOS apps do, though drag and drop. Some also get
> installed from the store or from an installer (though these are fairly rare).
> Do you mean it is not available in the App store?

What you say is sounding very muddled. :-(

>> Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
>> this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
>
> Not sure what I would even be asking. His app has files that get left behind
> -- as do other apps. Is there a reason to be concerned with this?

If you can find a few minutes spare, please review the post by
'etresoft' (JD) here:-

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8488115

I'm wondering WHY my posting persona, HunterBD, was banned from the ASC
forums. Have you any idea? Could you find out? Is it reversible?

--
In friendship,
David

David Brooks explained on 4/12/2022 :

> EtreCheck was ousted from the Apple App store. It is no longer available
> there.

You are no longer in military service, does that mean that you were
"ousted"?

On 12/04/2022 11:09, FromTheRafters wrote:
> David Brooks explained on 4/12/2022 :
>
>> EtreCheck was ousted from the Apple App store. It is no longer
>> available there.
>
> You are no longer in military service, does that mean that you were
> "ousted"?

There are some who have posted on Usenet who think I was.

What do YOU think on that score?

On 12/04/2022 11:09, FromTheRafters wrote:
> David Brooks explained on 4/12/2022 :
>
>> EtreCheck was ousted from the Apple App store. It is no longer
>> available there.
>
> You are no longer in military service, does that mean that you were
> "ousted"?

Did you find an answer here?

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8332293

Does EtreCheck have the blessing/approval of Apple itself?

On 12 Apr 2022, David Brooks wrote
(in article <M3c5K.65887$f91.55734@fx09.ams1>):

> On 11/04/2022 20:53, Snit wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 2022 at 12:18:38 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
> > <ja%4K.57628$3b1.33516@fx14.ams1>:
> >
> > > On 11/04/2022 19:17, Snit wrote:
> > > > On Apr 11, 2022 at 11:06:25 AM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
> > > > <F6_4K.392826$Lc1.290695@fx12.ams1>:
> > > >
> > > > > On 11/04/2022 16:51, Snit wrote:
> > > > > > On Apr 11, 2022 at 8:29:53 AM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
> > > > > > <SPX4K.392678$Lc1.310170@fx12.ams1>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 11/04/2022 16:14, Snit wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Apr 11, 2022 at 2:14:53 AM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
> > > > > > > > <ikS4K.551384$sb1.275030@fx11.ams1>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 11/04/2022 00:54, Snit wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Apr 10, 2022 at 4:07:31 PM MST, "David Brooks" wrote
> > > > > > > > > > <UqJ4K.551383$sb1.72491@fx11.ams1>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 10/04/2022 23:59, David Brooks adjusted his post to read:-
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I've just run another check using EasyFind and there are STILL
> > > > > > > > > > > > items
> > > > > > > > > > > > from Etrecheck left active on my machine.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *I have now deleted them*.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Here they are in my Waste Bin! https://ibb.co/7kr7mNK
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Something odd about this!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What apps do not leave such things behind?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > By that comment you appear to think that they are legitimate!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > They MUST be there for a reason.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > WHAT reason?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I gave some: if and when you reinstall an app you might want the same
> > > > > > > > preferences, for example. In other cases it is a file that allows you
> > > > > > > > to keep
> > > > > > > > your license. There are others which are placed in specific folders
> > > > > > > > so the OS
> > > > > > > > knows how to do a specific thing, and those should be removed -- but
> > > > > > > > to leave
> > > > > > > > them does no real harm. They tend to be tiny and harmless. If there
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > drivers and the like left behind, though, that can be an issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You will no doubt have the same files hidden away on YOUR computer as
> > > > > > > you have also downloaded EtreCheck.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What if they actually ARE nefarious?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there any app that does not leave such files behind? And are they
> > > > > > launched
> > > > > > or used in any way?
> > > > >
> > > > > *NO* application should leave malware hidden on a computer.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed... but we were talking files in general. Are there any apps that
> > > > do not
> > > > leave any behind? There may be... I have not done any deep checks.
> > >
> > > I don't wish to argue with you. It is EtreCheck I have been discussing.
> >
> > I understand that. But part of the question, if I understand correctly, is
> > if
> > EtreCheck is doing something uncommon (no less untoward). So far I have seen
> > no evidence it is doing either.
>
> EtreCheck was ousted from the Apple App store. It is no longer available
> there.

it was _withdrawn_. Not ‘ousted’.
>
>
> > > > > > > Do you care enough to contact the developer to ask why they are still
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > your computer?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not without reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason is simply to clarify /why/ such files are left behind after
> > > > > the product has supposedly been removed from a computer.
> > > >
> > > > It is the way macOS works. The standard uninstall method is to just drag
> > > > the
> > > > file from the Applications folder. Some small files that are saved
> > > > elsewhere
> > > > are not removed.
> > >
> > > You haven't been paying attention my friend! EtreCheck is not an proper
> > > 'application' and is NOT installed!
>
> Mike Easter claimed that the software was NOT installed per se.

what were his exact words? If he said what you imply, he’s wrong.
>
>
> > Not sure what you mean by a "proper" application. As far as installation --
> > it
> > installs the way many macOS apps do, though drag and drop. Some also get
> > installed from the store or from an installer (though these are fairly
> > rare).
> > Do you mean it is not available in the App store?
>
> What you say is sounding very muddled. :-(

you’re an idiot.
>
>
> > > Will you explain WHY you are reluctant to contact the developer about
> > > this matter? It won't cost anything more than a few minutes of your time.
> >
> > Not sure what I would even be asking. His app has files that get left behind
> > -- as do other apps. Is there a reason to be concerned with this?
>
> If you can find a few minutes spare, please review the post by
> 'etresoft' (JD) here:-
>
> https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8488115
>
> I'm wondering WHY my posting persona, HunterBD, was banned from the ASC
> forums. Have you any idea? Could you find out? Is it reversible?

because you’re a troll, a stalker, and an all-around vile arsenugget who
repeatedly violated the Terms if Service. You were bounced, let back in if
you’d behave, didn’t behave, and got bounced again.

On 12 Apr 2022, David Brooks wrote
(in article <Vgd5K.24995$4Og.7065@fx08.ams1>):

> On 12/04/2022 11:09, FromTheRafters wrote:
> > David Brooks explained on 4/12/2022 :
> >
> > > EtreCheck was ousted from the Apple App store. It is no longer
> > > available there.
> >
> > You are no longer in military service, does that mean that you were
> > "ousted"?
>
> There are some who have posted on Usenet who think I was.
>
> What do YOU think on that score?

you got ousted, alright. you also got outed. The truth came out about you.
And that truth burns you to this very day.