On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:11:53 -0800, Buz Overbeck wrote:
Next time, maybe you'll want to check the responses of others before
writing stuff like this.
Buz,
I don't think I would have responded to your assertion quite as strongly as
Dan did (and come to think of it I didn't
, but your response to Dan
seems to imply that the posts in this thread support your point more than
Dan's. Let's see:
Out of 10 posters total so far (excluding you), we have:
1 Post stating that your post was cause for concern IF true
1 Post stating that the nags appeared 3 times in 3 days (reason unknown)
1 Post stating that the nag only appeared once (at initial startup) in the
8 days or so that the newest version has been available
1 Post questioning the logic of payware without comment on actual
experience with the nag issue
4 Posts stating that the nag re-appeared due to a crash of some sort based
on the users experience
1 Post stating that a nag problem occurred, but the user was unsure if it
was related to a crash or not
1 Post providing a workaround by modifying an *.ini file without commenting
on what might be causing the nag / *.ini to be reset in the first place
The posts are hardly overwhelming evidence that MyIE2 is deliberately
nagware. So far, the erratic appearance of the nag (when and if it does
reappear again after being turned off by the user) looks more like a bug.
Maybe the subject of your post should have been a question (as in: Is MyIE2
Nagware?) as opposed to the emphatic statement that you have made. I
believe that is why Dan responded to you as he did. From what I've seen
though, your response to him is not supported by the "responses" that you
point to as evidence supporting your claim.