Does anyone reading here actually *USE* the EtreCheck software and enjoy interaction with the developer?
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
Your thoughts requested, folks! 🙂
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
Your thoughts requested, folks!
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net Tue,
05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Your thoughts requested, folks!
I'm looking forward to reading those thoughts, David. <G>
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net Tue,
05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the software. >> You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's not the case
because the author will not engage with you. You are once again, knowingly >> dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:19:58 AM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net Tue, >>> 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the software.
You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's not the case >>> because the author will not engage with you. You are once again, knowingly >>> dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck
"Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
Perhaps YOU will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck "Full Disk Access" one *HAS* left an open backdoor?
You have NO PROOF of your absurd claims about this *highly recommended* troubleshooting tool. But you continue to stalk/harasss/libel/slander this product and its author.
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net
Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the
software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's
not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once
again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri,
08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net
Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the
software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's
not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once
again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck
"Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You danced around my question and finally responded with the reason, because the author won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory answer for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to make against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri,
08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net
Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the
software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's >>>> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once >>>> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck >>> "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software
companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You danced
around my question and finally responded with the reason, because the
author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory
answer
for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to make
against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri, >>> 08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net
Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the
software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's >>>>> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once >>>>> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given
EtreCheck
"Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several
times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software
companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You
danced
around my question and finally responded with the reason, because the
author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory
answer
for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to make >>> against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
Has anyone investigated you?
Oh wait! They have!
On 08/08/2025 20:29, Alan wrote:I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net
Fri,
08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer
that's
not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are >>>>>> once
again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given
EtreCheck
"Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several
times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software >>>> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You
danced
around my question and finally responded with the reason, because
the author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory
answer
for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to
make
against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
Has anyone investigated you?
Oh wait! They have!
THAT isn't difficult!
*MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years.
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
On 08/08/2025 20:29, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net
Fri,
08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer
that's
not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are >>>>>> once
again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given
EtreCheck
"Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several
times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software >>>> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You
danced
around my question and finally responded with the reason, because
the author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory
answer
for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to
make
against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
Has anyone investigated you?
Oh wait! They have!
THAT isn't difficult!
*MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years.
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/bRRy3cwQ/Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
Thanks.
--
David B.
https://discussions.apple.com/profile/HunterBD/participation
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/8331613?answerId=33198885022&sortBy=rank#33198885022
On 2025-08-08 13:40, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 20:29, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net >>>>> Fri,
08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer >>>>>>> that's
not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are >>>>>>> once
again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given
EtreCheck
"Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several >>>>> times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software >>>>> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You
danced
around my question and finally responded with the reason, because
the author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory >>>>> answer
for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to >>>>> make
against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
Has anyone investigated you?
Oh wait! They have!
THAT isn't difficult!
*MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years.
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/
bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
If you, or anyone else, can explain why:
No clear public record exists of Mr. Daniel’s other professional work,
There is no independent audit of what EtreCheck collects and sends, despite requiring Full Disk Access,
…then by all means, enlighten me.
Until then, insults don’t change the fact that I’m asking the same question many cautious Mac users are entitled to ask.
On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
If you, or anyone else, can explain why:
No clear public record exists of Mr. Daniel’s other professional work,
Because one's personal life is NOT available in "public records".
There is no independent audit of what EtreCheck collects and sends,
despite requiring Full Disk Access,
Yes, there is. LOTS of people have looked into this. There is nothing wrong with it.
…then by all means, enlighten me.
Being "enlightened" means you have to listen to people who are answering your questions.
OTOH, stalking/harrassing/libeling/slandering means you ignore the answers to your "questions".
Until then, insults don’t change the fact that I’m asking the same
question many cautious Mac users are entitled to ask.
You have asked these questions MANY TIMES. They have been answered MANY TIMES. Drop it and move on.
On 2025-08-08 13:40, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 20:29, Alan wrote:I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net >>>>> Fri,
08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer >>>>>>> that's
not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are >>>>>>> once
again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given
EtreCheck
"Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several >>>>> times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software >>>>> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You
danced
around my question and finally responded with the reason, because
the author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory >>>>> answer
for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to >>>>> make
against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
Has anyone investigated you?
Oh wait! They have!
THAT isn't difficult!
*MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years.
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/bRRy3cwQ/
Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
On 08/08/2025 21:51, Alan wrote:I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you aren't a
On 2025-08-08 13:40, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 20:29, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk>
news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri,
08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>>>>>>>
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>>>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer >>>>>>>> that's
not the case because the author will not engage with you. You >>>>>>>> are once
again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given
EtreCheck
"Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you
several times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other
software
companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You >>>>>> danced
around my question and finally responded with the reason, because >>>>>> the author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a
satisifactory answer
for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue
to make
against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
Has anyone investigated you?
Oh wait! They have!
THAT isn't difficult!
*MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years.
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/
bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underline my point: when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
On 2025-08-08, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-08-08 13:40, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 20:29, Alan wrote:I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>> Fri,
08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>>>>>>>
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>>>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer >>>>>>>> that's
not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are >>>>>>>> once
again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given
EtreCheck
"Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several >>>>>> times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software >>>>>> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You >>>>>> danced
around my question and finally responded with the reason, because
the author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory >>>>>> answer
for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to >>>>>> make
against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
Has anyone investigated you?
Oh wait! They have!
THAT isn't difficult!
*MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years.
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/bRRy3cwQ/
Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
LOL !
David needs snit for that.after all snit once claimed he pissed or almost pissed on
his cat because he was so high on drugs.
David is surely a bigger target for snit!
And since they are besties snit will oblige.
ROTFLMAO!
On 2025-08-08, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-08-08 13:40, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 20:29, Alan wrote:I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>> Fri,
08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: >>>>>>>>
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>>>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer >>>>>>>> that's
not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are >>>>>>>> once
again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given
EtreCheck
"Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several >>>>>> times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software >>>>>> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You >>>>>> danced
around my question and finally responded with the reason, because
the author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory >>>>>> answer
for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to >>>>>> make
against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
Has anyone investigated you?
Oh wait! They have!
THAT isn't difficult!
*MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years.
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/bRRy3cwQ/
Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
LOL !
David needs snit for that.after all snit once claimed he pissed or almost pissed on
his cat because he was so high on drugs.
David is surely a bigger target for snit!
And since they are besties snit will oblige.
ROTFLMAO!
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net
Fri, 08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net
Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the
software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer
that's not the case because the author will not engage with you. You
are once again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given
EtreCheck "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several
times why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other
software companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple.
You danced around my question and finally responded with the reason,
because the author won't correspond with you. That's never going to be
a satisifactory answer for your implications and wrongful accusations
that you continue to make against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
On 2025-08-08 11:13, David B. wrote:
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
Has anyone investigated you?
Oh wait! They have!
And they've found you to be a complete asshole!
THAT isn't difficult!
*MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years.
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
Thanks.
--
David B.
https://discussions.apple.com/profile/HunterBD/participation
On 2025-08-08 13:40, David B. wrote:
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfn5lnF1jm9U1@mid.individual.net Fri,
08 Aug 2025 20:40:23 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
THAT isn't difficult!
I did make it much easier some years back when I taught you about .NFO files :)
You did go well out of your way to try and keep such a thing from happening to you though. You took deliberate action to have yourself deleted from the digital copies of what we would call a phone book here. Obviously, it didn't help you with me at the end of the day; I still found all the information
you tried to keep away from me and others. You'd already pissed a lot of people off well before I ever met you. And you took those steps well before
I met you, because, you have a very strong tendency of provoking people to the point where they digitally punch you in the mouth.
*MY* persona has been depicted on LinkedIn for many, many, years.
Might as well at that point, especially after that lesson in .NFO files you got. Are those coppers of yours attempting to come get me via canoe? It sure is taking them a long time, David Brooks.
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
Translation: I'm ignoring the fact I've been called out several times now
for slander, sliming, and, stalking. But, I'm going to continue asking for help in better stalking my victim; all because he did the right thing and stopped communicating with you via email.
David, did it ever occur to you that someone (not little ol me lol) may have sent him an email chat between yourself and another person where you faked asking for support with their product too? Maybe he noticed some
similarities in those emails and the ones between you and him. Perhaps, as a result, he realized that you're actually a real life, batshit crazy, cyber stalking, fucktard, who never had any real support queries. You like to get personal with people via email; and you expect them to respond to you in a manner you find timely; fuck their time table, David is more important. Atleast, you think you are.
Perhaps someone showed him what happens if they do answer all of your emails - Maybe they noticed that you attempted to dox someone because you didn't like the amount of time it was taking them to respond to you.
Our email correspondence alone shows what a royal piece of shit you are, and how honest! i've been describing you and what you do. I'm certain that
others have copies of emails between you and them that are along the same lines, because, you are you and you do the same shit you've been doing for years.
Someone either needs to place their boot firmly upon your neck and put all
of their weight on that foot, or sue the ever living shit out of you. Either way, at some point, one must go well outside of usenet to put an end to your idea of fun.
Thanks.
--
David B.
https://discussions.apple.com/profile/HunterBD/participation
Is that yet another banned for forum policy violation accounts? How many
have you had on that site alone, David?
When are you going to learn that you don't have the right to access gear you do not own without permission? That you are infact, a fucking guest on such networks and your permission to use them can be revoked at any time. When
are you going to learn to respect anothers property David?
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfn5lnF1jm9U1@mid.individual.net Fri,
08 Aug 2025 20:40:23 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
THAT isn't difficult!
I did make it much easier some years back when I taught you about .NFO files :)
Might as well at that point, especially after that lesson in .NFO files you got. Are those coppers of yours attempting to come get me via canoe? It sure is taking them a long time, David Brooks.
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
Someone either needs to place their boot firmly upon your neck and put all
of their weight on that foot, or sue the ever living shit out of you. Either way, at some point, one must go well outside of usenet to put an end to your idea of fun.
https://discussions.apple.com/profile/HunterBD/participation
Is that yet another banned for forum policy violation accounts?
How many have you had on that site alone, David?
When are you going to learn that you don't have the right to access gear you do not own without permission? That you are infact, a fucking guest on such networks and your permission to use them can be revoked at any time. When
are you going to learn to respect anothers property David?
I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you aren't a
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/
bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underline my point: >> when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you choose
to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
fair and reasonable person.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was on fire...
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, What the fuck is wrong with you?
David, people do not have to respond to a single email you send. You are lucky any of us responds a single time, let alone has a 'discussion' (only
to be abused by you later) with you of any kind. Stop attempting to slime legitimate software, David. You're a real piece of shit.
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
WTF? Why would I 'investigate' him?
I've already told you, David Brooks, I will happily mock you, possibly even taunt you on occasion. But! I won't intentionally help you with any
technical query until further notice. I have determined you didn't
appreciate the help when it was offered based on how you've acted towards me. As a result, I will not help you further.
On 09/08/2025 02:22, Gremlin did not answer David's valid question!
[....]
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, What the fuck is wrong with you?
David, people do not have to respond to a single email you send. You
are lucky any of us responds a single time, let alone has a
'discussion' (only to be abused by you later) with you of any kind.
Stop attempting to slime legitimate software, David. You're a real
piece of shit.
No way!
I'm asking valid questions and NOT getting answers.
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
WTF? Why would I 'investigate' him?
So even *YOU* cannot identify him. Got it!
I've already told you, David Brooks, I will happily mock you, possibly
even taunt you on occasion. But! I won't intentionally help you with
any technical query until further notice. I have determined you didn't
appreciate the help when it was offered based on how you've acted
towards me.
As a result, I will not help you further.
Some might think you are a cry-baby!
On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 10:01:26 +0100, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 02:22, Gremlin did not answer David's valid question!
[....]
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, What the fuck is wrong with you?
David, people do not have to respond to a single email you send. You
are lucky any of us responds a single time, let alone has a
'discussion' (only to be abused by you later) with you of any kind.
Stop attempting to slime legitimate software, David. You're a real
piece of shit.
No way!
I'm asking valid questions and NOT getting answers.
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
WTF? Why would I 'investigate' him?
So even *YOU* cannot identify him. Got it!
I've already told you, David Brooks, I will happily mock you, possibly
even taunt you on occasion. But! I won't intentionally help you with
any technical query until further notice. I have determined you didn't
appreciate the help when it was offered based on how you've acted
towards me.
As a result, I will not help you further.
Some might think you are a cry-baby!
What are you? Four?
On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>
If you, or anyone else, can explain why:
No clear public record exists of Mr. Daniel’s other professional work,
Because one's personal life is NOT available in "public records".
There is no independent audit of what EtreCheck collects and sends, >>> despite requiring Full Disk Access,
Yes, there is. LOTS of people have looked into this. There is nothing wrong >> with it.
…then by all means, enlighten me.
Being "enlightened" means you have to listen to people who are answering your
questions.
OTOH, stalking/harrassing/libeling/slandering means you ignore the answers to
your "questions".
Until then, insults don’t change the fact that I’m asking the same
question many cautious Mac users are entitled to ask.
You have asked these questions MANY TIMES. They have been answered MANY
TIMES. Drop it and move on.
Hi Tyrone,
Thanks for your reply.
You mentioned that lots of people have looked into EtreCheck and found nothing wrong.
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you aren't a
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/
bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be
identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underline my
point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you choose
to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
fair and reasonable person.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was on fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the point at hand.
On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:01:36 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>>
If you, or anyone else, can explain why:
No clear public record exists of Mr. Daniel’s other professional work,
Because one's personal life is NOT available in "public records".
There is no independent audit of what EtreCheck collects and sends, >>>> despite requiring Full Disk Access,
Yes, there is. LOTS of people have looked into this. There is nothing wrong >>> with it.
…then by all means, enlighten me.
Being "enlightened" means you have to listen to people who are answering your
questions.
OTOH, stalking/harrassing/libeling/slandering means you ignore the answers to
your "questions".
Until then, insults don’t change the fact that I’m asking the same >>>> question many cautious Mac users are entitled to ask.
You have asked these questions MANY TIMES. They have been answered MANY >>> TIMES. Drop it and move on.
Hi Tyrone,
Thanks for your reply.
You mentioned that lots of people have looked into EtreCheck and found
nothing wrong.
Why don't YOU mention the people who HAVE found ANYTHING wrong with EtreCheck?
YOU are the one making the allegations. It is up to YOU to prove them. Because everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.
Don't you think that people at Apple have looked into this? Don't you think that people at the various Apple support forums (where you have been banned) have looked into this? Why else would EVERYONE recommend EtreCheck? Even your
former hero Howard Oakley.
You are the ONLY person questioning EtreCheck. Over and over and over. You are obsessed with it. Yet you don't question any other software. You don't know any of the people who wrote any of the software you use daily. Yet you presume all of that software and all of those people to be innocent.
Why is that? Just because an innocent person (the author of EtreCheck) is avoiding a stalker (you)?
AGAIN, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you aren't a
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/
bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be
identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underline my
point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you choose
to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
fair and reasonable person.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was on fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the point at
hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote:Bully for you.
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you aren't
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/
bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be
identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underline my >>>>> point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you
choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
a fair and reasonable person.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was on fire... >>>
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the point at
hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
Alan,
The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its developer in
the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s personal worth.
On 09/08/2025 15:05, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:01:36 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>
On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>>>
If you, or anyone else, can explain why:
No clear public record exists of Mr. Daniel’s other professional work,
Because one's personal life is NOT available in "public records".
There is no independent audit of what EtreCheck collects and sends,
despite requiring Full Disk Access,
Yes, there is. LOTS of people have looked into this. There is nothing wrong
with it.
…then by all means, enlighten me.
Being "enlightened" means you have to listen to people who are answering your
questions.
OTOH, stalking/harrassing/libeling/slandering means you ignore the answers to
your "questions".
Until then, insults don’t change the fact that I’m asking the same >>>>> question many cautious Mac users are entitled to ask.
You have asked these questions MANY TIMES. They have been answered MANY >>>> TIMES. Drop it and move on.
Hi Tyrone,
Thanks for your reply.
You mentioned that lots of people have looked into EtreCheck and found
nothing wrong.
Why don't YOU mention the people who HAVE found ANYTHING wrong with EtreCheck?
YOU are the one making the allegations. It is up to YOU to prove them.
Because everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way
around.
Don't you think that people at Apple have looked into this? Don't you think >> that people at the various Apple support forums (where you have been banned) >> have looked into this? Why else would EVERYONE recommend EtreCheck? Even your
former hero Howard Oakley.
You are the ONLY person questioning EtreCheck. Over and over and over. You >> are obsessed with it. Yet you don't question any other software. You don't >> know any of the people who wrote any of the software you use daily. Yet you >> presume all of that software and all of those people to be innocent.
Why is that? Just because an innocent person (the author of EtreCheck) is >> avoiding a stalker (you)?
AGAIN, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way >> around.
Tyrone,
I’m not asking anyone to “prove guilt” — I’m asking for verifiable facts.
That’s the whole point: clear, documented evidence would settle the question far better than personal assumptions about my motives.
On Aug 9, 2025 at 1:54:57 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/08/2025 15:05, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:01:36 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>>
On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
If you, or anyone else, can explain why:
No clear public record exists of Mr. Daniel’s other professional work,
Because one's personal life is NOT available in "public records".
There is no independent audit of what EtreCheck collects and sends,
despite requiring Full Disk Access,
Yes, there is. LOTS of people have looked into this. There is nothing wrong
with it.
…then by all means, enlighten me.
Being "enlightened" means you have to listen to people who are answering your
questions.
OTOH, stalking/harrassing/libeling/slandering means you ignore the answers to
your "questions".
Until then, insults don’t change the fact that I’m asking the same >>>>>> question many cautious Mac users are entitled to ask.
You have asked these questions MANY TIMES. They have been answered MANY >>>>> TIMES. Drop it and move on.
Hi Tyrone,
Thanks for your reply.
You mentioned that lots of people have looked into EtreCheck and found >>>> nothing wrong.
Why don't YOU mention the people who HAVE found ANYTHING wrong with EtreCheck?
YOU are the one making the allegations. It is up to YOU to prove them. >>> Because everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way
around.
Don't you think that people at Apple have looked into this? Don't you think
that people at the various Apple support forums (where you have been banned)
have looked into this? Why else would EVERYONE recommend EtreCheck? Even your
former hero Howard Oakley.
You are the ONLY person questioning EtreCheck. Over and over and over. You >>> are obsessed with it. Yet you don't question any other software. You don't >>> know any of the people who wrote any of the software you use daily. Yet you >>> presume all of that software and all of those people to be innocent.
Why is that? Just because an innocent person (the author of EtreCheck) is >>> avoiding a stalker (you)?
AGAIN, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way
around.
Tyrone,
I’m not asking anyone to “prove guilt” — I’m asking for verifiable facts.
WE ARE DEMANIND FOR YOU TO PROVE GUILT. Because YOU are claiming guilt WITHOUT "verifiable facts".
That’s the whole point: clear, documented evidence would settle the
question far better than personal assumptions about my motives.
Yes, it is. So why are you alleging guilt without "clear, documented evidence"?
And we all know your personal motives. No assumptions necessary.
On 2025-08-09 10:58, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote:Bully for you.
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you aren't >>>>> a fair and reasonable person.
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/ >>>>>>>> bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be
identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underline my >>>>>> point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you
choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was on
fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the point at
hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
Alan,
The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its developer in
the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s
personal worth.
You're a lying piece of shit, so what you say you are doing doesn't
matter at all.
On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 10:01:26 +0100, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 02:22, Gremlin did not answer David's valid question!
[....]
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, What the fuck is wrong with you?
David, people do not have to respond to a single email you send. You
are lucky any of us responds a single time, let alone has a
'discussion' (only to be abused by you later) with you of any kind.
Stop attempting to slime legitimate software, David. You're a real
piece of shit.
No way!
I'm asking valid questions and NOT getting answers.
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
WTF? Why would I 'investigate' him?
So even *YOU* cannot identify him. Got it!
I've already told you, David Brooks, I will happily mock you, possibly
even taunt you on occasion. But! I won't intentionally help you with
any technical query until further notice. I have determined you didn't
appreciate the help when it was offered based on how you've acted
towards me.
As a result, I will not help you further.
Some might think you are a cry-baby!
What are you? Four?
On 9 Aug 2025 09:48:30 GMT, Creon wrote:
On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 10:01:26 +0100, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 02:22, Gremlin did not answer David's valid question!
[....]
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, What the fuck is wrong with you?
David, people do not have to respond to a single email you send. You
are lucky any of us responds a single time, let alone has a
'discussion' (only to be abused by you later) with you of any kind.
Stop attempting to slime legitimate software, David. You're a real
piece of shit.
No way!
I'm asking valid questions and NOT getting answers.
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
WTF? Why would I 'investigate' him?
So even *YOU* cannot identify him. Got it!
I've already told you, David Brooks, I will happily mock you, possibly >>>> even taunt you on occasion. But! I won't intentionally help you with
any technical query until further notice. I have determined you didn't >>>> appreciate the help when it was offered based on how you've acted
towards me.
As a result, I will not help you further.
Some might think you are a cry-baby!
What are you? Four?
You give him too much credit.
On 9 Aug 2025 09:48:30 GMT, Creon wrote:
On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 10:01:26 +0100, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 02:22, Gremlin did not answer David's valid question!
[....]
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, What the fuck is wrong with you?
David, people do not have to respond to a single email you send. You
are lucky any of us responds a single time, let alone has a
'discussion' (only to be abused by you later) with you of any kind.
Stop attempting to slime legitimate software, David. You're a real
piece of shit.
No way!
I'm asking valid questions and NOT getting answers.
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
WTF? Why would I 'investigate' him?
So even *YOU* cannot identify him. Got it!
I've already told you, David Brooks, I will happily mock you, possibly >>>> even taunt you on occasion. But! I won't intentionally help you with
any technical query until further notice. I have determined you didn't >>>> appreciate the help when it was offered based on how you've acted
towards me.
As a result, I will not help you further.
Some might think you are a cry-baby!
What are you? Four?
You give him too much credit.
On 09/08/2025 21:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 10:58, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote:Bully for you.
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/ >>>>>>>>> bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be >>>>>>>>> identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underline >>>>>>> my point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you
choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
aren't a fair and reasonable person.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was on
fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the point
at hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
Alan,
The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its developer in
the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s
personal worth.
You're a lying piece of shit, so what you say you are doing doesn't
matter at all.
Just whose sock-puppet are you, dear boy?
On 2025-08-09 14:49, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 21:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 10:58, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote:Bully for you.
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/ >>>>>>>>>> bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be >>>>>>>>>> identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underline >>>>>>>> my point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you >>>>>>>> choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
aren't a fair and reasonable person.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was on >>>>>>> fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the point >>>>>> at hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
Alan,
The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its developer in >>>> the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s
personal worth.
You're a lying piece of shit, so what you say you are doing doesn't
matter at all.
Just whose sock-puppet are you, dear boy?
No one's, you lying sack of shit.
And don't you just hate that.
On 2025-08-09 14:49, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 21:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 10:58, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/
bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underlineI wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you aren't a fair and reasonable person.
my point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was on fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the point at hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
Alan,
The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its developer in the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s personal worth.Bully for you.
You're a lying piece of shit, so what you say you are doing doesn't matter at all.
Just whose sock-puppet are you, dear boy?
No one's, you lying sack of shit.
And don't you just hate that.
On 09/08/2025 23:38, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 14:49, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 21:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 10:58, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote:Bully for you.
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://
i.ibb.co/ bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png >>>>>>>>>>>
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be >>>>>>>>>>> identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underline >>>>>>>>> my point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you >>>>>>>>> choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
aren't a fair and reasonable person.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was on >>>>>>>> fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the point >>>>>>> at hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
Alan,
The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its developer in >>>>> the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s >>>>> personal worth.
You're a lying piece of shit, so what you say you are doing doesn't
matter at all.
Just whose sock-puppet are you, dear boy?
No one's, you lying sack of shit.
I don't lie about anything, laddie! :-P
And don't you just hate that.
I'd very much like to know which post(s) you, personally, made in THIS thread!
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-etrecheck-safe-to-use-and-is-this-safe-place-to-download.2034144/page-2
Do tell!
On Aug 9, 2025, Alan wrote
(in article <1078iku$1he2o$2@dont-email.me>):
On 2025-08-09 14:49, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 21:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 10:58, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote:Bully for you.
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https://i.ibb.co/ >>>>>>>>>>> bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be >>>>>>>>>>> identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather underline >>>>>>>>> my point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you >>>>>>>>> choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
aren't a fair and reasonable person.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was on >>>>>>>> fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the point >>>>>>> at hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
Alan,
The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its developer in >>>>> the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s >>>>> personal worth.
You're a lying piece of shit, so what you say you are doing doesn't
matter at all.
Just whose sock-puppet are you, dear boy?
No one's, you lying sack of shit.
And don't you just hate that.
Our David likes to deploy sock puppets. he thinks that everyone is as dishonest as he is.
I don't lie about anything, laddie! :-P
Yes - you confirmed that you ARE a software pirate, and, for that,
*you will reap your just rewards*!
As you have discovered for yourself, he's a 'Will o' the Wisp' and even
you, Dustin Cook, can't identify the developer of EtreCheck!
DOZENS - since I was banned simply for asking searching questions!
When are you going to learn that you don't have the right to access
gear you do not own without permission? That you are infact, a fucking
guest on such networks and your permission to use them can be revoked
at any time. When are you going to learn to respect anothers property
David?
Ah! I was told it's OK to reinvent oneself by one of the gurus there - BDAqua.
He's the powerhouse behind this BBS board:-
https://www.x704.net/bbs/index.php?sid=bf2c01040ee9f70040165727b8326d57
Maybe you should explore there and dig up the truth!
On 09/08/2025 22:09, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 9, 2025 at 1:54:57 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>
On 09/08/2025 15:05, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 8, 2025 at 6:01:36 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
On 08/08/2025 22:30, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 8, 2025 at 4:58:52 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> >>>>>> wrote:
If you, or anyone else, can explain why:
No clear public record exists of Mr. Daniel’s other >>>>>>> professional work,
Because one's personal life is NOT available in "public records".
There is no independent audit of what EtreCheck collects
and sends,
despite requiring Full Disk Access,
Yes, there is. LOTS of people have looked into this. There is
nothing wrong
with it.
…then by all means, enlighten me.
Being "enlightened" means you have to listen to people who are
answering your
questions.
OTOH, stalking/harrassing/libeling/slandering means you ignore the >>>>>> answers to
your "questions".
Until then, insults don’t change the fact that I’m asking the same >>>>>>> question many cautious Mac users are entitled to ask.
You have asked these questions MANY TIMES. They have been
answered MANY
TIMES. Drop it and move on.
Hi Tyrone,
Thanks for your reply.
You mentioned that lots of people have looked into EtreCheck and found >>>>> nothing wrong.
Why don't YOU mention the people who HAVE found ANYTHING wrong with
EtreCheck?
YOU are the one making the allegations. It is up to YOU to prove >>>> them.
Because everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the
other way
around.
Don't you think that people at Apple have looked into this? Don't
you think
that people at the various Apple support forums (where you have been
banned)
have looked into this? Why else would EVERYONE recommend EtreCheck? >>>> Even your
former hero Howard Oakley.
You are the ONLY person questioning EtreCheck. Over and over and
over. You
are obsessed with it. Yet you don't question any other software. You
don't
know any of the people who wrote any of the software you use daily.
Yet you
presume all of that software and all of those people to be innocent.
Why is that? Just because an innocent person (the author of
EtreCheck) is
avoiding a stalker (you)?
AGAIN, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Not the
other way
around.
Tyrone,
I’m not asking anyone to “prove guilt” — I’m asking for verifiable
facts.
WE ARE DEMANIND FOR YOU TO PROVE GUILT. Because YOU are claiming guilt >> WITHOUT "verifiable facts".
That’s the whole point: clear, documented evidence would settle the
question far better than personal assumptions about my motives.
Yes, it is. So why are you alleging guilt without "clear, documented
evidence"?
And we all know your personal motives. No assumptions necessary.
Tyrone,
I’m not alleging “guilt” — I’m pointing out that claims of independent
audits are being made without any cited names, reports, or methodologies
that others can verify.
If you or anyone else can point to a public, third-party technical audit
of EtreCheck’s code or data handling, please link it. That’s all I’ve asked for from the start.
Presumption of innocence in law is not the same as bypassing basic due diligence in software security — especially for a tool with Full Disk Access.
Until those sources are cited, “lots of people have looked at it”
remains an unverified assertion, not evidence.
*Do you understand*?
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri,
08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net
Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the
software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's >>>> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once >>>> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck >>> "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software
companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You danced
around my question and finally responded with the reason, because the
author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory
answer
for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to make
against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
On 2025-08-10 01:46, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 23:38, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 14:49, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 21:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 10:58, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote:Bully for you.
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you >>>>>>>>> aren't a fair and reasonable person.
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https:// >>>>>>>>>>>> i.ibb.co/ bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png >>>>>>>>>>>>
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be >>>>>>>>>>>> identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather
underline my point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you >>>>>>>>>> choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was on >>>>>>>>> fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the
point at hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
Alan,
The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its developer in >>>>>> the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s >>>>>> personal worth.
You're a lying piece of shit, so what you say you are doing doesn't >>>>> matter at all.
Just whose sock-puppet are you, dear boy?
No one's, you lying sack of shit.
I don't lie about anything, laddie! :-P
You're lying about that.
And don't you just hate that.
I'd very much like to know which post(s) you, personally, made in THIS
thread!
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-etrecheck-safe-to-use-and-is-this-safe-place-to-download.2034144/page-2
Do tell!
Sure. I've never seen that thread or to my best recollection ever posted anything on those forums.
On 10/08/2025 20:41, Alan wrote:How do you get that response from the fact that I haven't read a
On 2025-08-10 01:46, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 23:38, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 14:49, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 21:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 10:58, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote:Bully for you.
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you >>>>>>>>>> aren't a fair and reasonable person.
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https:// >>>>>>>>>>>>> i.ibb.co/ bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please help me understand why none of his other work can be >>>>>>>>>>>>> identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather >>>>>>>>>>> underline my point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, you >>>>>>>>>>> choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was >>>>>>>>>> on fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the >>>>>>>>> point at hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
Alan,
The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its
developer in
the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s >>>>>>> personal worth.
You're a lying piece of shit, so what you say you are doing
doesn't matter at all.
Just whose sock-puppet are you, dear boy?
No one's, you lying sack of shit.
I don't lie about anything, laddie! :-P
You're lying about that.
and-is-And don't you just hate that.
I'd very much like to know which post(s) you, personally, made in
THIS thread!
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-etrecheck-safe-to-use-
this-safe-place-to-download.2034144/page-2
Do tell!
Sure. I've never seen that thread or to my best recollection ever
posted anything on those forums.
Do you know ANYTHING about Apple software?!!!
Or hardware?!!!
On 2025-08-13 12:09, David B. wrote:
On 10/08/2025 20:41, Alan wrote:How do you get that response from the fact that I haven't read a
On 2025-08-10 01:46, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 23:38, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 14:49, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 21:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 10:58, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote:Bully for you.
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https:// >>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.ibb.co/ bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please help me understand why none of his other work can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather >>>>>>>>>>>> underline my point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, >>>>>>>>>>>> you choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts. >>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you >>>>>>>>>>> aren't a fair and reasonable person.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was >>>>>>>>>>> on fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the >>>>>>>>>> point at hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
Alan,
The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its
developer in
the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s >>>>>>>> personal worth.
You're a lying piece of shit, so what you say you are doing
doesn't matter at all.
Just whose sock-puppet are you, dear boy?
No one's, you lying sack of shit.
I don't lie about anything, laddie! :-P
You're lying about that.
and-is-And don't you just hate that.
I'd very much like to know which post(s) you, personally, made in
THIS thread!
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-etrecheck-safe-to-use-
this-safe-place-to-download.2034144/page-2
Do tell!
Sure. I've never seen that thread or to my best recollection ever
posted anything on those forums.
Do you know ANYTHING about Apple software?!!!
Or hardware?!!!
particular thread on a not particularly important forum?
On 13/08/2025 20:32, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-13 12:09, David B. wrote:
On 10/08/2025 20:41, Alan wrote:How do you get that response from the fact that I haven't read a
On 2025-08-10 01:46, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 23:38, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 14:49, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 21:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 10:58, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote:Bully for you.
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https:// >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.ibb.co/ bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please help me understand why none of his other work can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather >>>>>>>>>>>>> underline my point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, >>>>>>>>>>>>> you choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts. >>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you >>>>>>>>>>>> aren't a fair and reasonable person.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was >>>>>>>>>>>> on fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the >>>>>>>>>>> point at hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
Alan,
The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its
developer in
the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s >>>>>>>>> personal worth.
You're a lying piece of shit, so what you say you are doing
doesn't matter at all.
Just whose sock-puppet are you, dear boy?
No one's, you lying sack of shit.
I don't lie about anything, laddie! :-P
You're lying about that.
and-is-And don't you just hate that.
I'd very much like to know which post(s) you, personally, made in
THIS thread!
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-etrecheck-safe-to-use-
this-safe-place-to-download.2034144/page-2
Do tell!
Sure. I've never seen that thread or to my best recollection ever
posted anything on those forums.
Do you know ANYTHING about Apple software?!!!
Or hardware?!!!
particular thread on a not particularly important forum?
Alan,
Fair point — not having read a particular MacRumors thread doesn’t in itself prove anything about your Apple knowledge. I only asked because MacRumors is, in my view, the go-to Mac forum, and I was curious if
you’d seen the relevant discussion there.
That said, in a thread about EtreCheck and Ulbow, it’s fair to ask
whether contributors have first-hand Apple experience to back their
opinions. My focus is on the facts — software behaviour, developer background, and security implications — not personalities.
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri,
08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net
Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the
software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's >>>> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once >>>> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck >>> "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software
companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You danced
around my question and finally responded with the reason, because the author >> won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory answer >> for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to make
against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
On Aug 8, 2025 at 2:13:18 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri, >>> 08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net
Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the
software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's >>>>> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once >>>>> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck >>>> "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several times >>> why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software
companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You danced >>> around my question and finally responded with the reason, because the author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory answer >>> for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to make >>> against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
AGAIN, why do you feel he needs to be "investigated"? Based on what? Just because YOU personally don't like him?
On 13/08/2025 20:32, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-13 12:09, David B. wrote:
On 10/08/2025 20:41, Alan wrote:How do you get that response from the fact that I haven't read a
On 2025-08-10 01:46, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 23:38, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 14:49, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 21:15, Alan wrote:
On 2025-08-09 10:58, David B. wrote:
On 09/08/2025 17:15, Alan wrote:Bully for you.
On 2025-08-09 01:50, David B. wrote:
On 08/08/2025 23:18, Alan wrote:
[....]
Here's what Mr Daniel showed about himself:- https:// >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.ibb.co/ bRRy3cwQ/ Screenshot-2022-04-19-at-17-13-29.png >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please help me understand why none of his other work can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be identified.
I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
That’s a colourful turn of phrase, but it does rather >>>>>>>>>>>>> underline my point:
when faced with a fair and reasonable technical question, >>>>>>>>>>>>> you choose to respond with personal abuse instead of facts. >>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't given a "fair and reasonable" question, because you >>>>>>>>>>>> aren't a fair and reasonable person.
You're an asshole who I wouldn't bother to put out if he was >>>>>>>>>>>> on fire...
Alan,
Your personal opinion of me is noted, but irrelevant to the >>>>>>>>>>> point at hand.
It is as relevant as your attacks on someone else.
Alan,
The distinction is that I’m questioning software and its
developer in
the context of user security — not making remarks about someone’s >>>>>>>>> personal worth.
You're a lying piece of shit, so what you say you are doing
doesn't matter at all.
Just whose sock-puppet are you, dear boy?
No one's, you lying sack of shit.
I don't lie about anything, laddie! :-P
You're lying about that.
and-is-And don't you just hate that.
I'd very much like to know which post(s) you, personally, made in
THIS thread!
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-etrecheck-safe-to-use-
this-safe-place-to-download.2034144/page-2
Do tell!
Sure. I've never seen that thread or to my best recollection ever
posted anything on those forums.
Do you know ANYTHING about Apple software?!!!
Or hardware?!!!
particular thread on a not particularly important forum?
Alan,
Fair point — not having read a particular MacRumors thread doesn’t in itself prove anything about your Apple knowledge. I only asked because MacRumors is, in my view, the go-to Mac forum, and I was curious if
you’d seen the relevant discussion there.
That said, in a thread about EtreCheck and Ulbow, it’s fair to ask
whether contributors have first-hand Apple experience to back their
opinions. My focus is on the facts — software behaviour, developer background, and security implications — not personalities.
On 13/08/2025 22:16, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 8, 2025 at 2:13:18 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net
Fri,
08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer
that's
not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are >>>>>> once
again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given
EtreCheck
"Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several
times
why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software >>>> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You
danced
around my question and finally responded with the reason, because
the author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory
answer
for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to
make
against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
AGAIN, why do you feel he needs to be "investigated"? Based on what?
Just
because YOU personally don't like him?
Back in 2014 I was happily helping him *test* his product. I still have copies of our email correspondence!
He has also confirmed that he's about the same age as my son. Maybe
that's why he's been unable to to best me! ;-)
I've never claimed not to like the fellow!
Other folk were slating the product on the Apple App Store, not me!
https://i.ibb.co/6RyCVF5h/4-DB889-D8-A144-4-A99-97-B5-C02-B46-CF96- A9-1-105-c.jpg
Do YOU think he became too greedy?
On 13/08/2025 22:16, Tyrone wrote:
AGAIN, why do you feel he needs to be "investigated"? Based on what? Just >> because YOU personally don't like him?
Back in 2014 I was happily helping him *test* his product. I still have >copies of our email correspondence!
He has also confirmed that he's about the same age as my son.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 22:45:19 +0100, "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/08/2025 22:16, Tyrone wrote:
AGAIN, why do you feel he needs to be "investigated"? Based on what? Just >>> because YOU personally don't like him?
Back in 2014 I was happily helping him *test* his product. I still have
copies of our email correspondence!
How long before you dragged Nick into it? Wait, never mind!
He has also confirmed that he's about the same age as my son.
Ugh! Pathetic, but at least you're predictably pathetic.
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
AGAIN, why do you feel he needs to be "investigated"?
JustI'm sure that's part but he doesn't really know himself, in the same way
because YOU personally don't like him?
On 13/08/2025 22:16, Tyrone wrote:
On Aug 8, 2025 at 2:13:18 PM EDT, ""David B."" <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>
On 08/08/2025 18:21, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfm1aeFqc46U1@mid.individual.net Fri, >>>> 08 Aug 2025 10:19:58 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
On 06/08/2025 06:58, Gremlin wrote:
"David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> news:mfe8q5Fh1j1U1@mid.individual.net >>>>>> Tue, 05 Aug 2025 11:38:45 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
There a question, too, about it possibly being "Malware"!
This has already been resolved. There is no malware present in the >>>>>> software. You have already confirmed that you continue to infer that's >>>>>> not the case because the author will not engage with you. You are once >>>>>> again, knowingly dishonestly, sliming the product.
Perhaps you will categorically confirm that once one has given EtreCheck >>>>> "Full Disk Access" one has *NOT* left an open backdoor?
This nonsense has already been covered as well. I asked you several times >>>> why you didn't apply the same standards to a variety of other software >>>> companies who's software does the same thing. Including Apple. You danced >>>> around my question and finally responded with the reason, because the author
won't correspond with you. That's never going to be a satisifactory answer >>>> for your implications and wrongful accusations that you continue to make >>>> against the software.
Etrecheck is clean. Use it or don't use it.
What about "John Daniel" - is HE "clean"?
Have you even /bothered/ to investigate him?!!
AGAIN, why do you feel he needs to be "investigated"? Based on what? Just >> because YOU personally don't like him?
Back in 2014 I was happily helping him *test* his product. I still have copies of our email correspondence!
He has also confirmed that he's about the same age as my son. Maybe
that's why he's been unable to to best me! ;-)
I've never claimed not to like the fellow!
Other folk were slating the product on the Apple App Store, not me!
https://i.ibb.co/6RyCVF5h/4-DB889-D8-A144-4-A99-97-B5-C02-B46-CF96-A9-1-105-c.jpg
Do YOU think he became too greedy?
On 14/08/2025 02:09, Kelly Phillips wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 22:45:19 +0100, "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/08/2025 22:16, Tyrone wrote:
AGAIN, why do you feel he needs to be "investigated"? Based on what? Just
because YOU personally don't like him?
Back in 2014 I was happily helping him *test* his product. I still have
copies of our email correspondence!
How long before you dragged Nick into it? Wait, never mind!
He has also confirmed that he's about the same age as my son.
Ugh! Pathetic, but at least you're predictably pathetic.
My *surviving* son, <snip>
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,064 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 148:13:05 |
| Calls: | 13,691 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,936 |
| D/L today: |
33 files (6,120K bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,410,932 |
