deganawida

I actually found that before, but you have to buy the program <{POST_SNAPBACK}> oops, sorry. just trying to find something to work for you.

'nother method. don't remember where i got "hijack this!" for work; program works well, though.

more info, and possible fix.

http://www.nsclean.com/trolist.html might be worth a shot. i'm combing norton right now, searching for info.

several of them use activeX to install themselves onto your computer (or, more specifically, your enabling of activex controls). these are the "new" spyware. a couple of months ago, the worst you got was popup windows that you couldn't choose anything but "yes" to, but now they have become really hideous. anyway, that's why they qualify as a virus, because you have no control over them and they continuously alter your system.

winrachet is classified as a "downloader" virus, as i recall. do a full virus scan. also, use regcleaner, and it will show up for you. (blast it, i hate being on dial-up.)

i noticed that in at least one of the pics, you have a security center alert. what is it? also, what security-type programs do you have installed? finally, did you update after sp2? there are a few "ins" that occured after sp2.

Are you using Ad-aware SE 1.05? I use that at work quite a bit, and in virtually every case it works like a charm (the notable exception being HotBar, which integrates itself totally into Internet Explorer, so the removal of it renders IE unusable). You can get it from www.download.com; update and do a smart system scan, followed by a full system scan, followed by a custom scan with all options ticked, and then finally run an AD scan. You'd be surprised at what can be missed in the first 2 scans. Spybot S&D is pretty good as well, but I prefer Ad-aware SE Personal. Also, run a search for "RegCleaner"; it's freeware developed several years ago, and is the best registry editing tool that I have used thus far (and I use a lot of them). On a side note, I find it extremely irritating just how bad the spyware problem has become. 90% of the performance issues that I run into at work are related to spyware (no, we don't have a good filter set up; the board of directors won't let us block anything except for porn). I find that Ezula, GAIN publishing, HotBar, and IncrediMail are the most difficult to get rid of, and the easiest to "catch". HotBar is particularly bad for sending your email address to every freakin' advertisor on the web. It seems that, with the assault against spam, the offenders are moving to spyware to continue their mindless ad campaigns.

Hmm. Sounds to me like tolerance would be better than forgiveness, as what you're describing is the belief that Christianity is superior to everything else. So, essentially, you'll forgive poor little agnostic me and exhort me to change my life, and to accept Christ, the lamb of hosts? You'll be cool with us as long as you become like us? Hell, maybe Christianity really is appropriate for America. That's our current foreign policy in a nutshell right there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No superiority at all. On the contrary, Christianity espouses that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and that Christians are "saved by grace through faith", meaning that even Christians are sinners (especially Christians, in my opinion), and that salvation comes not from being a good person, or following some law, but through an undeserved gift from God. As far as Christianity "superior to everything else", how is that any different than Islam, Judaism, or virtually any other major world religion? Each religion is predicated on the belief that this sole system is the route to everlasting life (or the cessation of individual life, in the case of Buddhism), and are, by their very nature, exclusive. This is, in fact, no different than your expressed views on "the stupid", religious individuals, and Republicans.

Emphasis mine. Okay, pet peeve time. Tolerance is not a Christian virtue. No where in the Bible is it preached. It amazes me how many people misconstrue Jesus' actions as being motivated by tolerance. He certainly wasn't tolerant when he drove the moneychangers out of the Temple with a whip, now was he? Nor did he tell the thief hanging beside him who chided the other thief, "Hey, you're okay, your beliefs have equal validity, let me get you off of that cross." If you doubt me, read the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) again, and what you will find that the behavior Jesus exhibits is forgiveness. When presented with behavior that went against his concepts of right and wrong, Jesus offered forgiveness and called the individual exhibiting said behavior to change his or her life. The only exception to this rule is the moneychanger episode. To me, though, his message of forgiveness is more powerful than today's message of tolerance; tolerance is, at its core, a passive activity, akin to apathy, while forgiveness is an active process, requiring real effort on the part of the one doing the forgiving. Of course, I'll freely admit that many Christians do not practice the forgiveness that they've received, and for anyone who has suffered as a result, I ask your forgiveness on their behalf. edit: Good grief, what is wrong with Quote lately? This is the second time this has happened to me.

newc, there are substantial differences in skull structure between Australopithecus and Homo erectus, and Homo floresiensis. In other news, scientists have announced that they will be searching nearby islands, using local myth as clues, to see if they can find more evidence of Flores man. They haven't ruled out that some Flores men may still be around.

And where did this table come from? What tests were administered to determine the IQ of the individuals in each state? When were the tests administered? There are a lot of questions that I have regarding this table, and they keep me from taking this thing seriously. They do NOT, however, keep me from being grossly offended by this blatant attack on the intelligence of those who live in "the red states" or who voted for Bush.

You know, since this thread was started, I have had tremendous difficulty taking it seriously. Why? Well, to put it simply, this is a thread that has focused primarily on bashing Christianity while it names itself and models itself after Christian iconography. "Armageddon", in the Christian belief system, is that area in the Middle East where the armies of the world are supposed to engage in a massive battle near the end of time. I mean, how am I supposed to take this seriously, when the thread is so laced with irony that one can choke on it? Anyone else have this problem?

Actually, I have a very healthy sense of humor, and I haven't found The Daily Show funny since Craig Kilborn left. What was that, '96 or '97? Anyway, Jon Stewart is, to me, a very bad comedian.

There was actually a report 4 or so months back (may be longer, can't remember) where it was found that Saddam's scientists were scamming them. He was paying them large sums of money to produce WMDs, they would write glowing reports to him about success, then the scientists would keep the money for themselves. I think that it was in the Kay report, but I could be mistaken.

Actually, if you read the original AP article (what's that? cnn edited out what they didn't like from the AP article? no! heaven forbid!), you will find that that glitch occured on ONE machine in ONE county. What's really interesting, is that only that ONE county in the entire state used that type of machine, which the AP article describes as "older". So, ONE older machine, the likes of which are found in no other county in Ohio, glitched and gave Bush extra votes, but not enough extra votes to change the election result. There goes your "multiply that 'error' by all the precincts of ohio" theory. Further, if you read more carefully, you will find that it screwed up the votes for county commisioner, not just for Bush, so there goes any kooky "Bush bought off the voting machine companies" theory which you may be expounding upon.

Been a couple of years. We've played together since high school, though, so I don't know what other groups are like.

Great, now I am both scared and strangely arroused. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Has no one here ever seen that Snickers commercial?

Best commercial EVAR (the caps are for newc, 'cause I know how much he loves 'em)!!!!!

Would you like that, citizen? Would you like to ride...with Batman?

I'm not a woman... ...but I am Batman. Does that count for anything?

Thats not "relevant"????? But I agree with you on one thing, it's not a surprise <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To your original point, it is not. You were implying that Bush is already breaking a campaign promise to reduce the national deficit by 2009 by raising the ceiling. This would have happened no matter who was elected, unless you wanted all government employees to not get paid for the rest of the fiscal year, schools stop getting funding, etc.

Did you miss where I posted tha tbush just requested to raise the cap on the debt, the day after the election? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not relevant, or even a surprise. If you had paid attention to the news several weeks ago, you would have noticed that the SecTreas went in front of Congress and told them that we had reached our spending cap and all government spending would have to be put on hold until Congress raised the spending limit. Congress voted to put the matter on hold until after the election. No matter who was elected, the debt cap would have had to been raised. This does not, in any way, imply new spending, just that this year's budget exceeds the estimate.

This suggests that Kerry is a liberal. He is more liberal than Bush, but he is a moderate, overall. Even Bush is moderate on a lot of issues, and really isn't that far right -- especially fiscally. That's why he lost some votes to Badnarik. I voted Libertarian. I want the government to be decentralized. If anyone questions why, I'd like them to look at how the colors spread across the map -- not only on a national level, but on a state level. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, Bush is closer to moderate on a lot of government program issues. Most people don't realize that in his first term he spent more money than the last two presidents combined, with the bulk of that coming in social programs. For all the bashing of his prescription drug plan, it is a massive addition to Medicare, and is something that pundits never believed a Republican would submit, much less sign into law. No Child Left Behind (stupid, stupid act) increased public education spending as well. I know that I am vastly disappointed with the level of spending of Bush's first term, and hope that his second term will show more restraint.

Ye gods, can you people overreact a little more? I mean, all I'm seeing is doom'n'gloom emotional garbage rather than anyone trying to apply reason to reach an analysis of what this means.