Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.messenger (
More info?)
"C Montague" <cmontague@anomynous.con> wrote in message
news:e%23pi57InEHA.3820@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Stephen P Harris
> You should be ashamed of yourself. As I see it, Nick only gave his
> opinion
> (this is a public forum) whereas you from the start set out to belittle
> him.
How is your post any different? Isn't some stranger just tuning into this
thread going to find your post to me belittling? Nick does have a history of
undeserved holier than thou, high and mightiness which I may have quoted in
this thread:
Nick wrote:
"And I standby my original Post " treat the cause and not the symptoms".
I can see we will never agree, so let's just abide by our own opinion. I
just feel that you should have been a little more enlightening to the OP.
Nick"
Nick is not capable of practicing what he preaches.
> Who gave you the right to police these forums and call contributors liars.
Who gave you the right to police these forums and call contributors behavior
disgraceful? I would imagine it is because you feel you have the right to
express your opinion and at the same time you don't think I have the same
right because you disagree with it.
> Normally I just read these forums without contributing but your behaviour
> and attitude has compelled me to respond.
That is because you are a like-minded two-faced moral imposter as is Nick.
You feel it is ok for you to pass out grades in ethics because you are
"superior".
Nick feels he can give computer advice because of his superior logical
reasoning.
Now you say Nick "only gave his opinion" My first response was:
"No you were not following the advice given in that thread."
Nick wrote:
Shirley,
"A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
(unplugging) the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
Nick
SH replied to Nick:
"There is nothing in either thread you quoted about _"physically removing"_
the connection. Maybe you don't know what the above ^^^ term means.
Choosing not to connect to the internet is a logical software solution or
it is something you don't do, which is not a physical removal. The ideas are
different because sometimes you have to physically remove an internal Nic
card in order to uninstall drivers or change resources for an internal
modem. JK was saying it didn't matter if you uninstalled QoS."
SH: I was in a position to comment objectively about this because I was
involved in the post(s) Nick referred to above. I received personal email
from Ron who was the person needing help when this issue was resolved,
thanking me for my help.
So I was in a position to state that Nick's initial post was factually in
error.
There is no reference whatsoever, to "physically removing the connection".
What you may regard as 'belittle' is my recognition that Nick for some
reason, performed a major bungle in interpreting those posts.
Nick's advice, factually, ranged from useless to slightly harmful,
depending upon the setup and age of the person implementing his advice.
Nick is too inexperienced to take such things into account.
But he is not too young to know not to give advice about a particualr
subject
that he knows practically nothing about. This is a peer to peer support
forum.
That entitles everyone to post an opinion. But this forum has another
purpose,
which is to provide helpful information to people with problems. That
purpose
is not served by people contributing advice to other people whose value
ranges
from inappropriate to quite useless bordering on harmful depending on the
situation of the person who tried to use such advice.
My first response labels his advice as useless, which it truthfully is, and
is indeed mildly critical because I realize Nick has posted on a topic that
he knows hardly anything about. That is not helpful to other current readers
on this forum, or to poeple who will later read the archives of this
newsgroup
when they encounter the same problem.
That is the ethical standard I adhere to. Correctness of advice given is
more
important than the right to post wrong information under freedom of speech,
as I think the purpose of this forum is to emphasize helpful advice to
problems,
not some self-aggrandizing, pretend to be helpful, acutally ingnorant
misinformation.
I did not accuse Nick of lying in his initial post of advice. But in his
defense
of that initial post where he kept bringing up/diverting attention to
irrelevant
subjects. Like that Microsoft' documentation was out of date since SP2,
or that in the best case scenario, it only took several seconds more to
disconnect a cable rather than use the mouse to disable a connection.
So I referred to his lying in later posts which would be clear to someone
who
read the entire thread.
You would know that if you had read the entire thread carefully. Nick
didn't read those prior posts that he used for reference carefully either.
He just spouted off at the mouth, or blew hot air. You also have no
technical expertise to evaluate Nick's posting. You are of the same ilk
as Nick which is why you took offense. I believe in calling a liar a liar
because it warns other people. I have no use for the morality of people
who encourage the posturing of false civility when confronted with a lie.
Certainly I belittled Nick's later posts when he tried to cloud/confuse the
issue
of his giving stinking advice by bringing up irrelevant side issues. Some
people
might interpret mildly disparaging language as equivalent to mild
condemnation.
I am proud of doing that. I believe in calling a spade a spade.
Nick's first post can be considered a mistake. But his effort
to justify his mistake became a lie.
> I consider you an ill-mannered oaf.
> C Montague
>
And I consider your morals phoney flotsam.
I don't want to be liked by shallow, superficial, philosophical people.
Your pretensions permeate your post.
You have a problem with your personal honesty and
I think it is unlikely you make backups of your computer. And IMO,
it is unlikely you are capable of seeing how these issues are related.
In case it is not clear, I am showing contempt for your post,
not merely dismissing or belittling it. That is not really true,
I hold you and your kind in contempt.
Brids of a feather, flock together,
Stephen
> "Stephen Harris" <Stephen_P_Harris@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OLwsujDnEHA.3988@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> :
> : "Old Nick" <hell@downunder.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:uf47B6BnEHA.2708@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> : > Stephen,
> : > I'm not going to argue with you further. You are an obnoxious person
> : > and extremely rude. I have tried to conduct this discussion without
> : > resulting to personal insults but you make this impossible with your
> : > immature mentality.
> : > Nick
> : >
> :
> : There has never been a discussion in this thread. You have never
> : had anything worthwhile to say and when your lies were exposed
> : you tried to misrepresent the issue and make a strawman argument:
> :
> : >>> Normally to physically disconnect is just a matter of reaching for
> the
> : >>> connection at the wall, if you disconnect at the wall or click on
> the
> : >>> disconnect icon makes very little difference in effort expended.
> : >>> Nick
> :
> : You try to weasel out of your lie about another post recommending
> : physical removal (that you misunderstood) and now try to represent
> : the issue as an argument over a matter of convenience; both methods
> : take about the same amount of time, so therefore both methods are
> : correct. You think that because you are ignorant and you think you can
> : slide it by because you are hoping there isn't another reason besides
> : time why you shouldn't recommend the practice of shutting off devices
> : physically rather than by the preferred method of software shutdown.
> :
> : The answer to Shireley's question was: Go ahead and uninstall
> : QoS if you can't untick that option box, it won't bother MSN.
> :
> : Shirley wrote:
> :
> : "I followed the instructions and got to the point of where
> : I was attempting to uncheck the Qos Packet and the only
> : options are to uninstall/install...even though it has a
> : check tick in it I cannot get the tick to come out. Is
> : it safe to uninstall Qos Packet or is it a necessary part
> : of the msn service?????"
> :
> : SH: Your answer has nothing to do with a solution, it is a fabrication.
> :
> : >>> Nick wrote:
> : >>> Shirley,
> : >>> "A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
> : >>> (unplugging)
> : >>> the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
> : >>> Nick
> :
> : SH: First, you don't know if she has a router and therefore likely
> doesn't
> : need
> : to disconnect from the internet in order to uninstall QoS. Second, you
> : don't tell her if she has a dial-up connection, to simply not make the
> : connection.
> : Third, you recommend a physically disconnecting of the device instead of
> a
> : mouse click. That means you know squat about being a hardware
> technician.
> :
> : There is a lot of discrepancy between your answer and the right answer
> : and then you stubbornly defended ignorance. I was rude to you and
> insulted
> : you because you deserved no respect. You tried to pass off your lying
> : bungling, inept advice and then failed to admit when you were caught.
> : Instead you told more lies and tried to change the subject.
> :
> : This post may be excused due to ignorance:
> :
> : >>> Nick wrote:
> : >>> Shirley,
> : >>> "A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
> : >>> (unplugging)
> : >>> the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
> : >>> Nick
> : >>
> :
> : But to continue to defend it is a stupid lie. Your are not going to save
> : any face by once again trying to change the subject to my rudeness.
> : I would not have insulted you or been rude to you if you had not
> : deliberately lied and tried to point your finger at other unrelated
> issues.
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> : > "Stephen Harris" <Stephen_P_Harris@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> : > news:uNpecvBnEHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> : >>
> : >> "Old Nick" <hell@downunder.invalid> wrote in message
> : >> news:%23hL9c97mEHA.2764@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> : >>> Stephen,
> : >>> What a fuss you are making over physical or electrical
> disconnection.
> : >>
> : >> That is a lie.
> : >>
> : >>> Nick wrote:
> : >>> Shirley,
> : >>> "A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
> : >>> (unplugging)
> : >>> the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
> : >>> Nick
> : >>
> : >> You read that post and misinterpreted it. Ron's postings had
> : >> nothing to with physical removal. That was a figment of your
> : >> imagination.
> : >>
> : >>> Normally to physically disconnect is just a matter of reaching for
> the
> : >>> connection at the wall, if you disconnect at the wall or click on
> the
> : >>> disconnect icon makes very little difference in effort expended.
> : >>> Nick
> : >>>
> : >>
> : >> Another ignorant remark. It might be normally true for a router.
> : >> But it is not true for a dial-up modem. And a dial-up modem
> : >> connection normally produces this error situation not a router.
> : >>
> : >> And a modem is often connected near a desk with the connection on
> : >> the floor and the computer sits on top of the desk facing a wall and
> : >> often not easily accesible to the modem plug-in in the back of the
> : >> computer.
> : >>
> : >> A physical disconnection is certainly more difficult for elderly
> people.
> : >> Your narrow interpretation makes me think you are a teenager or at
> : >> least have not grown up yet, because you have a teenage mentality.
> : >>
> : >>> "Stephen Harris" <Stephen_P_Harris@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> : >>> news:OqMLfk5mEHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> : >>>>
> : >>>> "Old Nick" <hell@downunder.invalid> wrote in message
> : >>>> news:O8pTZt2mEHA.648@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> : >>>>> Stephen,
> : >>>>> I have an ADSL connection which polls my computer from time to
> time,
> : >>>>> therefore I physically disconnected the link to conform with Ron's
> : >>>>> suggested procedure (disconnecting the connection), anyway I had
> no
> : >>>>> problems when I physically broke the connection. I gave that
> advice
> : >>>>> to
> : >>>>> Shirley who seemed to be having problems deleting/un-installing
> her
> : >>>>> QoS.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> I did not say that you could not break the connection your way.
> : >>>> But I did say it was the wrong way and the wrong advice to give.
> : >>>> A router can be disabled by a mouse click near its status option or
> : >>>> by disabling the nic card will break the connection and enabled
> simply.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> You quoted some posts made by Ron. He was using dial-up and
> : >>>> he broke his connection (which he never had to make) by clicking
> : >>>> on the ATT dial-up screen which has connect --- disconnect options.
> : >>>> Then he entered properties from that screen and proceeded to
> disable
> : >>>> QoS.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> The option to untick QoS is when using dial-up like Ron, is not
> : >>>> available.
> : >>>> After you disable the dial-up internet the internet connection you
> : >>>> have
> : >>>> to
> : >>>> uninstall QoS not untick it.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Shirley may have a router, but a dial-up modem shows up in Network
> : >>>> Connections, and you can use Properties / Networking to get to QoS.
> : >>>> So you don't know if she has a router or a dial-up from what she
> wrote.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> You gave the wrong instructions for a dial-up, because they give
> the
> : >>>> impression you have to unplug the telephone cord or open the
> computer
> : >>>> case and remove the internal modem. That is what physical means.
> : >>>> This is inefficient when you have the option of doing this by
> mouse.
> I
> : >>>> don't
> : >>>> have to be a Know It All to know what the word disconnect means or
> : >>>> realize that advice for dial-up does not fit dsl well. You used
> your
> : >>>> imagination
> : >>>> to substitute for your limited knowledge which you brashly supposed
> was
> : >>>> adequate.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> You were clueless about those conditions when you dispensed advice:
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Nick wrote:
> : >>>> Shirley,
> : >>>> "A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
> : >>>> (unplugging)
> : >>>> the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
> : >>>> Nick
> : >>>>
> : >>>> No post said anything like what your reading comprehension has
> conjured
> : >>>> up.
> : >>>> Jonathan Kay gives advice that works on a router. That is because
> most
> : >>>> routers do not have the Qos option greyed out, you can untick them,
> and
> : >>>> you
> : >>>> can untick them or uninstall them while you are connected to the
> : >>>> internet.
> : >>>>
> : >>>>> Reference Shirley's quote
> : >>>>> "I followed the instructions and got to the point of where
> : >>>>> I was attempting to uncheck the Qos Packet and the only
> : >>>>> options are to uninstall/install...even though it has a
> : >>>>> check tick in it I cannot get the tick to come out. Is
> : >>>>> it safe to uninstall Qos Packet or is it a necessary part
> : >>>>> of the msn service?????"
> : >>>>>
> : >>>>
> : >>>>> As you have mentioned another post, ref.
> : >>>>> http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
> : >>>>> document the it should be amended. Again I was only quoting from
> an
> : >>>>> authorised MS Document. You say that "Windows Firewall
> automatically
> : >>>>> installed which disables the questioned ports unless the user
> : >>>>> intervenes and allows the ports". I cannot find it documented
> : >>>>> anywhere
> : >>>>> that UDP ports 135, 137, and 138; TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137
> are
> : >>>>> blocked by Sp.2. As you appear to KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can
> : >>>>> enlighten me on where this information is located?
> : >>>>>
> : >>>>> Nick
> : >>>>
> : >>>> You know it took me awhile to figure out what you meant, what
> : >>>> you interpreted this portion of my post to mean. Why would you
> think
> : >>>> that you would find this documented? SP2 Windows Firewalls block
> : >>>> almost all ports except those required by the OS and not singled
> out
> : >>>> by installing software that requires unique ports like a lot of
> games.
> : >>>>
> : >>>>>> What you stated was bluntly wrong, and striker just decided not
> to
> go
> : >>>>>> into detail.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> That means the advice you passed on about physically disconnecting
> : >>>> your internet connection device (router or dial-up modem) was
> wretched.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Striker's fault, if you want to call it that, was according to you
> : >>>> "I just feel that you should have been a little more enlightening
> to
> : >>>> the
> : >>>> OP."
> : >>>>
> : >>>> SH: The enlightenment contained in your advice will have you
> : >>>> reincarnating
> : >>>> as a troglodyte. IOW, you missed the cosmic mark on a much grander
> : >>>> scale
> : >>>> than your guru striker.
> : >>>>
> : >>>>>> Win xp SP2 comes with messenger service disabled and Windows
> Firewall
> : >>>>>> automatically installed which disables the questioned ports
> unless
> : >>>>>> the
> : >>>>>> user
> : >>>>>> intervenes and allows the ports. That is a choice, not
> automatically
> : >>>>>> a
> : >>>>>> bad decision.
> : >>>>>> Whereas using some method other than mouse clicks such as
> physical
> : >>>>>> removal
> : >>>>>> of internal modem or unplugging the telephone to disconnect from
> the
> : >>>>>> internet is a
> : >>>>>> bad decision.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Nick wrote:
> : >>>>> I cannot find it documented anywhere that UDP ports 135, 137, and
> 138;
> : >>>>> TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137 are blocked by Sp.2. As you
> appear
> to
> : >>>>> KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can enlighten me on where this information
> is
> : >>>>> located?
> : >>>>
> : >>>> This question is poorly framed. A better question is what ports
> does
> : >>>> SP2 block automatically and which does it open. Can you allow or
> : >>>> disallow each and every port with Windows Firewall?
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service
> : >>>> Pack
> : >>>> 2
> : >>>>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=ef3a35c0-19b9-4acc-b5be-9b7dab13108e&displaylang=en
> : >>>> "If you disable or do not configure {see further down page for url}
> : >>>> this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
> : >>>> 445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
> : >>>> receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
> : >>>> services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports."
> : >>>> _______________________________________________________
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Hi Andy,
> : >>>>
> : >>>> The Windows XP firewall (current and SP2) handle inbound
> connections
> : >>>> only -- outgoing connections are not blocked.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, so I'll simply explain how
> the
> : >>>> current firewall does it and then how the SP2 firewall can.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Current Firewall:
> : >>>> 1. Either side of a conversation initiates an Audio conversation
> and
> : >>>> accepts it
> : >>>> 2. Messenger sends API call to firewall to open necessary port for
> : >>>> audio conversation
> : >>>> 3. Messenger sends information on current IP and audio port to
> connect
> : >>>> to the other contact
> : >>>> 4. Incoming connection from contact to the specified port
> : >>>> 5. After conversation is complete, API call to remove the open
> port
> : >>>>
> : >>>> and we're done. Also keep in mind that Windows Messenger will also
> : >>>> open
> : >>>> some ports when it starts (MSN Messenger does not).
> : >>>>
> : >>>> The SP2 firewall is basically the same, with the exception that the
> SP2
> : >>>> firewall will allow you to unblock all inbound to Messenger,
> therefore
> : >>>> not requiring the individual ports to be opened.
> : >>>> ____________________________________________
> : >>>> Jonathan Kay
> : >>>> Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
> : >>>> Associate Expert
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Mark Olbert wrote:
> : >>>>
> : >>>>> I cannot connect WMI Control to a remote SP2 machine (on the same
> : >>>>> subnet). I've checked to ensure the correct TCP port is open as
> : >>>>> per the KB article I found -- it is -- but still no joy.
> : >>>>>
> : >>>>> Is there anyway to use WMI against a remote XP SP2 machine now,
> : >>>>> or has MS blocked that forever?
> : >>>>
> : >>>> torgeir, wrote: Hi
> : >>>>
> : >>>> WMI (or more correctly RPC/DCOM) uses TCP ports 135 and 445 as well
> : >>>> as dynamically-assigned ports above 1024.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> To handle this, you need to enable "Allow remote administration
> : >>>> exception" for the firewall.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> This can be done with gpedit.msc for a local computer, or push it
> out
> : >>>> with a AD GPO if possible. You can also use the command line tool
> : >>>> netsh.exe to do this, see further down for how.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service
> : >>>> Pack
> : >>>> 2
> : >>>>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=ef3a35c0-19b9-4acc-b5be-9b7dab13108e&displaylang=en
> : >>>>
> : >>>> <quote>
> : >>>> Administrative Templates\Network\Network Connections\Windows
> : >>>> Firewall\<some> Profile
> : >>>> Windows Firewall: Allow remote administration exception
> : >>>>
> : >>>> "Allows remote administration of this computer using administrative
> : >>>> tools such as the Microsoft Management Console (MMC) and Windows
> : >>>> Management Instrumentation (WMI). To do this, Windows Firewall
> opens
> : >>>> TCP ports 135 and 445. Services typically use these ports to
> : >>>> communicate using remote procedure calls (RPC) and Distributed
> : >>>> Component Object Model (DCOM). This policy setting also allows
> : >>>> SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE to receive unsolicited incoming messages
> : >>>> and allows hosted services to open additional dynamically-assigned
> : >>>> ports, typically in the range of 1024 to 1034. If you enable this
> : >>>> policy setting, Windows Firewall allows the computer to receive the
> : >>>> unsolicited incoming messages associated with remote
> administration.
> : >>>> You must specify the IP addresses or subnets from which these
> : >>>> incoming messages are allowed. If you disable or do not configure
> : >>>> this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
> : >>>> 445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
> : >>>> receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
> : >>>> services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports.
> Because
> : >>>> disabling this policy setting does not block TCP port 445, it does
> : >>>> not conflict with the Windows Firewall: Allow file and printer
> : >>>> sharing exception policy setting. Note: Malicious users often
> : >>>> attempt to attack networks and computers using RPC and DCOM. We
> : >>>> recommend that you contact the manufacturers of your critical
> : >>>> programs to determine if they are hosted by SVCHOST.exe or
> LSASS.exe
> : >>>> or if they require RPC and DCOM communication. If they do not, then
> : >>>> do not enable this policy setting. Note: If any policy setting
> : >>>> opens TCP port 445, Windows Firewall allows inbound ICMP echo
> : >>>> request messages (the message sent by the Ping utility), even if
> the
> : >>>> Windows Firewall: Allow ICMP exceptions policy setting would block
> : >>>> them. Policy settings that can open TCP port 445 include Windows
> : >>>> Firewall: Allow file and printer sharing exception, Windows
> Firewall:
> : >>>> Allow remote administration exception, and Windows Firewall: Define
> : >>>> port exceptions.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> WF_XPSP2.doc "Deploying Windows Firewall Settings for Microsoft
> : >>>> Windows XP with Service Pack 2" is downloadable from
> : >>>>
>
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=4454e0e1-61fa-447a-bdcd-499f73a637d1
> : >>>>
> : >>>> --
> : >>>> torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
> : >>>> Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
> : >>>> the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
> : >>>>
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/default.mspx
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Nick wrote:
> : >>>>> As you have mentioned another post, ref.
> : >>>>> http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
> : >>>>> document the it should be amended.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> SH: IMO, supersedes means to replace and such things should be
> : >>>> understood
> : >>>> in terms of practical reality. Microsoft cannot rewrite hundreds of
> : >>>> thousands
> : >>>> of pages of documentation in a few weeks, if they choose to do so
> at
> : >>>> all.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Your research is also sloppy and second-rate. Your other post
> : >>>> makes no sense to me. This is all the free time you get from me.
> : >>>> It case you think I insulted you by calling you stupid, I didn't
> mean
> : >>>> it that way. I meant it as a technical description.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> Sincerely,
> : >>>> Stephen
> : >>>>
> : >>>>
> : >>>>
> : >>>
> : >>>
> : >>
> : >>
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram