said by Doobie :

As far as I can see, matunga is just reporting what s//he finds somewhere else in the Net. I mean, this is not matunga 's own findings and spin?

said by Doobie :

MarkAW . I said I was "new here", not that I was a newbie. I believe there's a difference,

said by Doobie :

As far as I can see, matunga is just reporting what s//he finds somewhere else in the Net. I mean, this is not matunga 's own findings and spin?

said by SUMware :

You may certainly choose to disregard matunga's long term MO and personally accept his posts as acceptable 'spin'.

Many of us recognize his malevolence toward, and disrespect of, readers here.

matunga's bias is not the issue. The concern is his intentional, willful and repeated attempts to mislead, deceive, and lie in order to promote his agenda.

said by nwrickert :

But aren't people overreacting?

said by nwrickert :

And when we spend too many posts in ad hominem response, that tends to make the open source community look bad.

said by nwrickert :

I think we would do better by simply responding appropriately to the issues raised by matunga , and leaving it at that.

said by nwrickert :

Incidently, when matunga originally started this thread with a title "Daft list names Firefox, Adobe and VMWare as top threats", I thought he had gotten something right for a change. But then he came back and changed the title. Such is life.

said by Steve :

Yes, these are strictly news clippings from elsewhere, and any one or two taken individually are no different than other security advisories noted here.

But when taken in the aggregate, a pattern emerges:

* Always attempts (poorly) to imply that open source is insecure
* No attempt whatsoever to engage in debate

Steve

said by De Hollander :

Try another browser

said by PrntRhd :

I think that is what gets me going, Matunga does not listen to anything we say, and just announces whatever he has been programmed to say.