Tillbaka till svenska Fidonet
English   Information   Debug  
OS2BBS   0/787
OS2DOSBBS   0/580
OS2HW   0/42
OS2INET   0/37
OS2LAN   0/134
OS2PROG   0/36
OS2REXX   0/113
OS2USER-L   207
OS2   0/4779
OSDEBATE   0/18996
PASCAL   0/490
PERL   0/457
PHP   0/45
POINTS   0/405
POLITICS   0/29554
POL_INC   0/14731
PSION   103
R20_ADMIN   1117
R20_AMATORRADIO   0/2
R20_BEST_OF_FIDONET   13
R20_CHAT   0/893
R20_DEPP   0/3
R20_DEV   399
R20_ECHO2   1379
R20_ECHOPRES   0/35
R20_ESTAT   0/719
R20_FIDONETPROG...
...RAM.MYPOINT
  0/2
R20_FIDONETPROGRAM   0/22
R20_FIDONET   0/248
R20_FILEFIND   0/24
R20_FILEFOUND   0/22
R20_HIFI   0/3
R20_INFO2   2632
R20_INTERNET   0/12940
R20_INTRESSE   0/60
R20_INTR_KOM   0/99
R20_KANDIDAT.CHAT   42
R20_KANDIDAT   28
R20_KOM_DEV   112
R20_KONTROLL   0/13030
R20_KORSET   0/18
R20_LOKALTRAFIK   0/24
R20_MODERATOR   0/1852
R20_NC   76
R20_NET200   245
R20_NETWORK.OTH...
...ERNETS
  0/13
R20_OPERATIVSYS...
...TEM.LINUX
  0/44
R20_PROGRAMVAROR   0/1
R20_REC2NEC   534
R20_SFOSM   0/340
R20_SF   0/108
R20_SPRAK.ENGLISH   0/1
R20_SQUISH   107
R20_TEST   2
R20_WORST_OF_FIDONET   12
RAR   0/9
RA_MULTI   106
RA_UTIL   0/162
REGCON.EUR   0/2055
REGCON   0/13
SCIENCE   0/1206
SF   0/239
SHAREWARE_SUPPORT   0/5146
SHAREWRE   0/14
SIMPSONS   0/169
STATS_OLD1   0/2539.065
STATS_OLD2   0/2530
STATS_OLD3   0/2395.095
STATS_OLD4   0/1692.25
SURVIVOR   0/495
SYSOPS_CORNER   0/3
SYSOP   0/84
TAGLINES   0/112
TEAMOS2   0/4530
TECH   0/2617
TEST.444   0/105
TRAPDOOR   0/19
TREK   0/755
TUB   0/290
UFO   0/40
UNIX   0/1316
USA_EURLINK   0/102
USR_MODEMS   0/1
VATICAN   0/2740
VIETNAM_VETS   0/14
VIRUS   0/378
VIRUS_INFO   0/201
VISUAL_BASIC   0/473
WHITEHOUSE   0/5187
WIN2000   0/101
WIN32   0/30
WIN95   0/4275
WIN95_OLD1   0/70272
WINDOWS   0/1517
WWB_SYSOP   0/419
WWB_TECH   0/810
ZCC-PUBLIC   0/1
ZEC   4

 
4DOS   0/134
ABORTION   0/7
ALASKA_CHAT   0/506
ALLFIX_FILE   0/1313
ALLFIX_FILE_OLD1   0/7997
ALT_DOS   0/152
AMATEUR_RADIO   0/1039
AMIGASALE   0/14
AMIGA   0/331
AMIGA_INT   0/1
AMIGA_PROG   0/20
AMIGA_SYSOP   0/26
ANIME   0/15
ARGUS   0/924
ASCII_ART   0/340
ASIAN_LINK   0/651
ASTRONOMY   0/417
AUDIO   0/92
AUTOMOBILE_RACING   0/105
BABYLON5   0/17862
BAG   135
BATPOWER   0/361
BBBS.ENGLISH   0/382
BBSLAW   0/109
BBS_ADS   0/5290
BBS_INTERNET   0/507
BIBLE   0/3563
BINKD   0/1119
BINKLEY   0/215
BLUEWAVE   0/2173
CABLE_MODEMS   0/25
CBM   0/46
CDRECORD   0/66
CDROM   0/20
CLASSIC_COMPUTER   0/378
COMICS   0/15
CONSPRCY   0/899
COOKING   27601
COOKING_OLD1   0/24719
COOKING_OLD2   0/40862
COOKING_OLD3   0/37489
COOKING_OLD4   0/35496
COOKING_OLD5   9370
C_ECHO   0/189
C_PLUSPLUS   0/31
DIRTY_DOZEN   0/201
DOORGAMES   0/1974
DOS_INTERNET   0/196
duplikat   5999
ECHOLIST   0/18295
EC_SUPPORT   0/318
ELECTRONICS   0/359
ELEKTRONIK.GER   1534
ENET.LINGUISTIC   0/13
ENET.POLITICS   0/4
ENET.SOFT   0/11701
ENET.SYSOP   33773
ENET.TALKS   0/32
ENGLISH_TUTOR   0/2000
EVOLUTION   0/1335
FDECHO   0/217
FDN_ANNOUNCE   0/7068
FIDONEWS   23435
FIDONEWS_OLD1   0/49742
FIDONEWS_OLD2   0/35949
FIDONEWS_OLD3   0/30874
FIDONEWS_OLD4   0/37224
FIDO_SYSOP   12841
FIDO_UTIL   0/180
FILEFIND   0/209
FILEGATE   0/212
FILM   0/18
FNEWS_PUBLISH   4155
FN_SYSOP   41520
FN_SYSOP_OLD1   71952
FTP_FIDO   0/2
FTSC_PUBLIC   0/13556
FUNNY   0/4886
GENEALOGY.EUR   0/71
GET_INFO   105
GOLDED   0/408
HAM   0/16041
HOLYSMOKE   0/6791
HOT_SITES   0/1
HTMLEDIT   0/71
HUB203   466
HUB_100   264
HUB_400   39
HUMOR   0/29
IC   0/2851
INTERNET   0/424
INTERUSER   0/3
IP_CONNECT   719
JAMNNTPD   0/233
JAMTLAND   0/47
KATTY_KORNER   0/41
LAN   0/16
LINUX-USER   0/19
LINUXHELP   0/1155
LINUX   0/22002
LINUX_BBS   0/957
mail   18.68
mail_fore_ok   249
MENSA   0/341
MODERATOR   0/102
MONTE   0/992
MOSCOW_OKLAHOMA   0/1245
MUFFIN   0/783
MUSIC   0/321
N203_STAT   894
N203_SYSCHAT   313
NET203   321
NET204   69
NET_DEV   0/10
NORD.ADMIN   0/101
NORD.CHAT   0/2572
NORD.FIDONET   189
NORD.HARDWARE   0/28
NORD.KULTUR   0/114
NORD.PROG   0/32
NORD.SOFTWARE   0/88
NORD.TEKNIK   0/58
NORD   0/453
OCCULT_CHAT   0/93
Möte OSDEBATE, 18996 texter
 lista första sista föregående nästa
Text 2057, 418 rader
Skriven 2005-01-18 19:07:38 av Geo (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 2032 av Rich (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Do we protect users from their own stupidity?
=========================================================
From: "Geo" <georger@nls.net>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0077_01C4FD90.F9E07010
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In the current version of Outlook, is there a way to view the source for = an
email without opening the email first like you can do in Outlook = express?=20

Geo.
  "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:41ec70a9@w3.nls.net...
     Or care to do any of those three?  It is easy enough to do them all =
in any of the Microsoft email clients I use.  People don't becuase they = don't
care to.  Those that care do.

  Rich

    "Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote in =
message news:ltcou0lhvanrbp6su81dokr26fcrpiftfa@4ax.com...
    Periodically I get phishing emails pretending to be from ebay, and =
they
    even manage to get "ebay" into the headers, but if you look up the =
IP
    address of course you find out it's not... but what percentage of =
users
    A) know how to find the header;
    B) know how to read it; or
    C) know how to look up an IP address?

    On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:14:01 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in message
    <41eaf508@w3.nls.net>:

    >   I disagree.
    >
    >   People do very much know the difference between their own =
computer and the other computers referenced in phishing attacks.  They = know
that email comes from somewhere outside their computer.  They know = the web
site to which they are referred is not their computer.  They = still are
fooled.
    >
    >   People know they are choosing to download and install software =
from the Internet.  What they may not know is that it is or contains = spyware.
 There is no confusion over boundaries.
    >
    >   I believe your whole idea of trust is off base.  People aren't =
making decisions on whether or not to trust particular machines.  I = douby
very much most people even think that way.  People place trust in = other
people or in some cases who they believe those people are.  = Phishing attacks
for bank sites succeed because the people the fall pray = to them believe that
the people sending the email are valid = representitives of the bank and they
trust those people.
    >
    >   As for your initial premise, I honestly don't know what it is =
you believe is consistent that should not be or is different that should = not
be.  You can't be referring to the browser which is almost never = used for the
local computer and clearly identifies what is local and = what is not.
    >
    >   Your claim regarding phishing is also wrong.  The address bar is =
one possible indicator to users.  Phishing attacks preceeded any of = these and
continue without them.  I've seen phishing emails that make no = attempt to
mask the domain to which they refer.  People still get = fooled.  The address
bar probably means little to many users.  I can = tell when speaking with and
helping non-technical users that even though = they get that they type into the
address bar to go to a site they do not = always get that it is overloaded to
provide feedback to them where they = have gone.  The same with the status bar.
 Their have been status bar = spoofs.  They make little difference.  Do any of
these make a difference = to you so that you would be fooled?
    >
    >Rich
    >
    >  "Geo" <georger@nls.net> wrote in message =
news:41ea4440@w3.nls.net...
    >  part of the reason it's so easy to fool people is because of =
Microsoft. Remember some years ago when I said to make a consistant = interface
that blurs the line between the local machine and remote = machines/internet
machines was a mistake? Well that's one of the big = reasons why people today
are so easy to fool. They don't understand the = concept of trusted/untrusted
machines because it all looks the same to = them. They honestly don't know
where their machine ends and the rest of = the world begins.
    >
    >  I understood the logic behind making that a consistent interface =
and blurring the line but I saw the problem with it as well. How is a = user to
know the difference between a remote website and a help page = from one of
their own programs if there is no difference?
    >
    >  As for not knowing anyone who was infected due to the exploit of =
a bug, doesn't phishing work because of a bug that allows IE to show one =
address in the address bar while in fact it's talking to another = address?
What, doesn't that count?
    >
    >  Geo.
    >    "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:41e9f4ea$1@w3.nls.net...
    >       You can't protect them from their own stupidity.  I've seen =
plenty of examples of people getting infected with spyware due to their = own
explicit actions, either approving when asked if something should be =
installed or explicitly downloading and installing something that is or =
includes spyware.  I do not know of anyone personally that was infected = due
to an exploit of a bug.  Phishing is another example that relies = almost
entirely on people being to trusting and doing something they = shouldn't.  I
haven't seen an email virus in a long time that did not = rely on the user
following instructions in the email to act against his = own interest and run
or even save then open and run something they = shouldn't.  We are well beyond
what many folks would consider security.  = To protect against people making
these kinds of mistakes you have to = take choices they can't be trusted making
away from them.  That upsets = the folks that can be trusted to or want to make
these choices unhappy.  = This
    >isn't far from the idea that putting you in a straightjacket makes =
you more secure because you are less likely to hurt yourself.  As for = how
people react to this, do you remember the reaction to cars that = buzzed or
otherwise made noise when the driver or a passenger did not = wear his seat
belt?  It wasn't positive.
    >
    >    Rich
    >      "Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> wrote =
in message news:48qju0547j4l00akdf69j0bip7fgj8bmp5@4ax.com...
    >      And that is a very big problem when trying to figure out what =
security
    >      features should be built in or what functionality should be =
allowed.  Do
    >      we protect users from their own stupidity?   I guess there is =
a
    >      rationale for doing so in that if the masses' machines are =
laxly secured
    >      (if at all), the danger to _everyone_ increases.
    >
    >      On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:07:12 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in =
message
    >      <41e30a96@w3.nls.net>:
    >
    >      >   I agree there are a great many people that have no =
interest in or familiarity with exercising the control available to = them. 
That will always be true. =20
    >      >
    >      >Rich
    >      >
    >      >  "Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com> =
wrote in message news:7og4u0pj8f0nq10sm8t2covkac7q75oj1s@4ax.com...
    >      >  Well, I think this conversation is all over the place =
regarding who we
    >      >  are talking about when we talk about users.  The folks =
here are an
    >      >  entirely different animal from the famous great unwashed =
masses.
    >      >
    >      >  On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:40:28 -0800, "Rich" <@> wrote in =
message
    >      >  <41e0fbe8@w3.nls.net>:
    >      >
    >      >  >   Because you are in control, my point to george.
    >      >  >
    >      >  >Rich

------=_NextPart_000_0077_01C4FD90.F9E07010
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In the current version of Outlook, is =
there a way=20
to view the source for an email without opening the email first like you = can
do=20
in Outlook express? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Geo.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV>"Rich" &lt;@&gt; wrote in message <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:41ec70a9@w3.nls.net">news:41ec70a9@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp; Or care to do any of =
those=20
  three?&nbsp; It is easy enough to do them all in any of the Microsoft =
email=20
  clients I use.&nbsp; People don't becuase they don't care to.&nbsp; =
Those that=20
  care do.</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <BLOCKQUOTE=20
  style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
    <DIV>"Ellen K." &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com">72322.enno.esspe=
ayem.1016@compuserve.com</A>&gt;=20
    wrote in message <A=20
    =
href=3D"news:ltcou0lhvanrbp6su81dokr26fcrpiftfa@4ax.com">news:ltcou0lhvan=
rbp6su81dokr26fcrpiftfa@4ax.com</A>...</DIV>Periodically=20
    I get phishing emails pretending to be from ebay, and they<BR>even =
manage to=20
    get "ebay" into the headers, but if you look up the IP<BR>address of =
course=20
    you find out it's not... but what percentage of users<BR>A) know how =
to find=20
    the header;<BR>B) know how to read it; or<BR>C) know how to look up =
an IP=20
    address?<BR><BR>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:14:01 -0800, "Rich" &lt;@&gt; =
wrote=20
    in message<BR>&lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:41eaf508@w3.nls.net">41eaf508@w3.nls.net</A>&gt;:<BR><BR>&=
gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    I disagree.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; People do very much know the =

    difference between their own computer and the other computers =
referenced in=20
    phishing attacks.&nbsp; They know that email comes from somewhere =
outside=20
    their computer.&nbsp; They know the web site to which they are =
referred is=20
    not their computer.&nbsp; They still are =
fooled.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    People know they are choosing to download and install software from =
the=20
    Internet.&nbsp; What they may not know is that it is or contains=20
    spyware.&nbsp; There is no confusion over=20
    boundaries.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; I believe your whole idea of =
trust=20
    is off base.&nbsp; People aren't making decisions on whether or not =
to trust=20
    particular machines.&nbsp; I douby very much most people even think =
that=20
    way.&nbsp; People place trust in other people or in some cases who =
they=20
    believe those people are.&nbsp; Phishing attacks for bank sites =
succeed=20
    because the people the fall pray to them believe that the people =
sending the=20
    email are valid representitives of the bank and they trust those=20
    people.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; As for your initial premise, I =
honestly=20
    don't know what it is you believe is consistent that should not be =
or is=20
    different that should not be.&nbsp; You can't be referring to the =
browser=20
    which is almost never used for the local computer and clearly =
identifies=20
    what is local and what is not.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; Your =
claim=20
    regarding phishing is also wrong.&nbsp; The address bar is one =
possible=20
    indicator to users.&nbsp; Phishing attacks preceeded any of these =
and=20
    continue without them.&nbsp; I've seen phishing emails that make no =
attempt=20
    to mask the domain to which they refer.&nbsp; People still get =
fooled.&nbsp;=20
    The address bar probably means little to many users.&nbsp; I can =
tell when=20
    speaking with and helping non-technical users that even though they =
get that=20
    they type into the address bar to go to a site they do not always =
get that=20
    it is overloaded to provide feedback to them where they have =
gone.&nbsp; The=20
    same with the status bar.&nbsp; Their have been status bar =
spoofs.&nbsp;=20
    They make little difference.&nbsp; Do any of these make a difference =
to you=20
    so that you would be =
fooled?<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;Rich<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; "Geo"=20
    &lt;<A href=3D"mailto:georger@nls.net">georger@nls.net</A>&gt; wrote =
in=20
    message <A=20
    =
href=3D"news:41ea4440@w3.nls.net">news:41ea4440@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&gt;=
&nbsp;=20
    part of the reason it's so easy to fool people is because of =
Microsoft.=20
    Remember some years ago when I said to make a consistant interface =
that=20
    blurs the line between the local machine and remote =
machines/internet=20
    machines was a mistake? Well that's one of the big reasons why =
people today=20
    are so easy to fool. They don't understand the concept of =
trusted/untrusted=20
    machines because it all looks the same to them. They honestly don't =
know=20
    where their machine ends and the rest of the world=20
    begins.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; I understood the logic behind making =
that a=20
    consistent interface and blurring the line but I saw the problem =
with it as=20
    well. How is a user to know the difference between a remote website =
and a=20
    help page from one of their own programs if there is no=20
    difference?<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp; As for not knowing anyone who was =
infected=20
    due to the exploit of a bug, doesn't phishing work because of a bug =
that=20
    allows IE to show one address in the address bar while in fact it's =
talking=20
    to another address? What, doesn't that count?<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;=20
    Geo.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "Rich" &lt;@&gt; wrote in message <A=20
    =
href=3D"news:41e9f4ea$1@w3.nls.net">news:41e9f4ea$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    You can't protect them from their own stupidity.&nbsp; I've seen =
plenty of=20
    examples of people getting infected with spyware due to their own =
explicit=20
    actions, either approving when asked if something should be =
installed or=20
    explicitly downloading and installing something that is or includes=20
    spyware.&nbsp; I do not know of anyone personally that was infected =
due to=20
    an exploit of a bug.&nbsp; Phishing is another example that relies =
almost=20
    entirely on people being to trusting and doing something they=20
    shouldn't.&nbsp; I haven't seen an email virus in a long time that =
did not=20
    rely on the user following instructions in the email to act against =
his own=20
    interest and run or even save then open and run something they=20
    shouldn't.&nbsp; We are well beyond what many folks would consider=20
    security.&nbsp; To protect against people making these kinds of =
mistakes you=20
    have to take choices they can't be trusted making away from =
them.&nbsp; That=20
    upsets the folks that can be trusted to or want to make these =
choices=20
    unhappy.&nbsp; This<BR>&gt;isn't far from the idea that putting you =
in a=20
    straightjacket makes you more secure because you are less likely to =
hurt=20
    yourself.&nbsp; As for how people react to this, do you remember the =

    reaction to cars that buzzed or otherwise made noise when the driver =
or a=20
    passenger did not wear his seat belt?&nbsp; It wasn't=20
    positive.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    Rich<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "Ellen K." &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com">72322.enno.esspe=
ayem.1016@compuserve.com</A>&gt;=20
    wrote in message <A=20
    =
href=3D"news:48qju0547j4l00akdf69j0bip7fgj8bmp5@4ax.com">news:48qju0547j4=
l00akdf69j0bip7fgj8bmp5@4ax.com</A>...<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;=20
    And that is a very big problem when trying to figure out what=20
    security<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; features should be =
built in=20
    or what functionality should be allowed.&nbsp;=20
    Do<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; we protect users from their =
own=20
    stupidity?&nbsp;&nbsp; I guess there is=20
    a<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; rationale for doing so in =
that if=20
    the masses' machines are laxly =
secured<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    (if at all), the danger to _everyone_=20
    increases.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; On Mon, 10 =
Jan 2005=20
    15:07:12 -0800, "Rich" &lt;@&gt; wrote in=20
    message<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:41e30a96@w3.nls.net">41e30a96@w3.nls.net</A>&gt;:<BR>&gt;<=
BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; I agree there are a great many people that have no =
interest=20
    in or familiarity with exercising the control available to =
them.&nbsp; That=20
    will always be true.&nbsp; <BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    &gt;Rich<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; "Ellen K." =
&lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:72322.enno.esspeayem.1016@compuserve.com">72322.enno.esspe=
ayem.1016@compuserve.com</A>&gt;=20
    wrote in message <A=20
    =
href=3D"news:7og4u0pj8f0nq10sm8t2covkac7q75oj1s@4ax.com">news:7og4u0pj8f0=
nq10sm8t2covkac7q75oj1s@4ax.com</A>...<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;=20
    &gt;&nbsp; Well, I think this conversation is all over the place =
regarding=20
    who we<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; are talking =
about=20
    when we talk about users.&nbsp; The folks here are=20
    an<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; entirely =
different=20
    animal from the famous great unwashed=20
    masses.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; On Sun, 9 Jan =
2005=20
    01:40:28 -0800, "Rich" &lt;@&gt; wrote in=20
    message<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:41e0fbe8@w3.nls.net">41e0fbe8@w3.nls.net</A>&gt;:<BR>&gt;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp; =
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
    Because you are in control, my point to=20
    george.<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;=20
    &gt;<BR>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;=20
&gt;Rich<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0077_01C4FD90.F9E07010--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)