Although it may "appear" suspicious to you, and evidently to others, I would\nstill stand firm in my position which is as follows:\n\n1) Multiple "major" cross-posting for such updates is not unprecedented, in\nfact I've seen it often.\nReasonably paranoid means nothing and is entirely "subjective".\n\n2) I take exception to your reference to my Sig. First it's prejudicial;\nsecond, would it make a difference if it were "Joan", "Jim", "James", or\n"Rebecca of Sunnybrook farm"? You'd be just as foolish and prejudicial to\nclick on one of those because they appealed to ones "White Bread Goody\nTwo-Shoes" sensibilities.In fact, in my mind that would be a more convincing\nway to perpetrate such a scam. Have you not ever heard of reverse\npsychology?\n\nI might also add -as I have already in part - who the heck *would* post a\nvirus or whatever, with a name "Virus Master", "Hell-Raiser" or whatever,\nand then have a URL that said "Parasites - get them here". That wouldn't be\na very effective way to ensnare someone if the intention was to spread or\n*broadcast* a virus in my view.\n\nI have already stated at first light of day -for me- that perhaps I should\nhave made clearer the URL and other factors. So, what did I do? Just that,\nwith multiple references, step by step, a multiple number of times as well.\nFurthermore, my position was supported (finally) by a number of persons\nranging from those who can read and recognize, to the very Webmaster of the\nsite in question.\n\nAddressing your "average person" position: What kind of MVP-MCSE, posts back\nwhat I received as a reply? Is that a remark from the <quote/> *average\nperson* <end/>? Sub-Standard MVP in my view. The person obviously spent only\na microsecond before jumping to a snap decision - which need I remind you -\nwas inaccurate and wrong. This person, and obviously yourself as well, did\nnot recognize that a good portion of the URL was from Jim Eshelmans highly\nesteemed site, which is *commonly* referred to in numerous newsgroups. And\nas yet, have I received a retraction or an apology? NO! I haven't.\n\nLastly, and perhaps most importantly: Do you realize that this is a very\nserious charge to make against a person, when it is a *CRIME* and UNLAWFUL\nto send, spread, and create viruses that are intended to wreak havoc on /\nthrough the Internet? So I feel I have no need to apologize for my well\nmeaning, genuine, accurate, helpful, and NON-VIRAL post and link. I feel I\nam owed an apology by the person who was wrong. It's that simple.\n\nAnd I have *no need* to apologize for my Sig either. It's irrelevant, and\nalthough it has no bearing whatsoever, I have seen far "worse" sigs, which I\nwill not even bother to repeat as they are beneath me. The only apology I\nwould offer is to Jim Eshelman himself, and for obvious reasons. This I had\ndone already, in advance, and was reassured that it was unnecessary.