As some of us have already warned, the above thread has an embedded malware that can endanger your computer.

Until Bruce or Alan removes this threat, do not open the thread.  I strongly suggest this be removed asap before computers are infected.

If the malware cannot be removed, the entire thread should be removed until the infection is corrected.

R

PS-

As most folks know, these malwares/viruses are almost always designed to infect PCs, not Macs.  That's because the great majority of computer owners have PCs.

So the fact that isee posted on the bin laden thread should not be interpreted as meaning it's not infected.  It simply means her computer does not run the Windows operating system.

Again, I urge Bruce/Alan to remove that entire thread until the malware is removed.

R

To All,

I have notified Paulie that any posts by him with any links to any malware must be removed by him by 8PM January 31, 2013.  Failure to comply will result in banning him from the site.

If you find such a link after that time please notify me using the Peer Moderator form and I will carry out the banning.

Bruce

Thanks Bruce.

R

Paulie informs me that he doesn't think any of his post contains links to malware and in fact suggests other are at fault.  I won't tolerate malware links and the threat they carry for visitors.

He's banned.

Please use the Peer Moderator Form to let me know about any attempts to rejoin under new names.

Bruce

That's a shame. He's the only one who has been attempting PE's for quite some time. He has been no more abrasive than any other people on this forum have been at various times. What a dumb reason to be kicked off a forum.

At least some people are reporting retrievals lately. Otherwise, this is a conversation board only, and that doesn't move us forward. In my opinion. In fact, this forum becomes stagnant on a regular basis and needs the energy of those who dare to report their experiences, and to try new things. Just my 2 cents. So I'll shut up for a while.

Bruce,

Have the bad links in the affected threads been removed???  From what I understood, just opening the thread itself opened you up to the malware. 

How can a person know if a link has Malware?

Hi Bruce, Isee, Vicky

I am the one who first found the malware.  If any of you are interested, you can dowload malwarebytes for free.  It is a great program.  I paid a one time 20.00 fee for the full version (which you can upload to several computers).  But even with the free version, if you have it, it picks up hidden attacks on your computer ports that you wouldn't be aware of.

Whenever I clicked on a thread with Pauli's pictures of the pentagon, it said it blocked attempts to get into my ports.  My antivirus software (AVG) did not pick up on it - only malwarebytes did. 

Just so you know, I private messaged Pauli warning him about the spyware, and telling him what I found.  He had ample time to confirm the malware for himself and remove it.  I am not in favor of banning people.  However, for those of you who don't have malwarebyte, and just have regular antivirus (McAfee, Norton), you may have had your computer accessed if you clicked on that thread.  Not sure what it can do though. 

I would like to believe that Pauli was not directly involved in the spyware/malware.  He seemed honest, and a bit simple in his thread against Swedenborg.  So I thought he really didn't know about it.  That being said, you would think his first response would be to remove the offending spyware and apologize (and/or check it on his own with malwarebytes or another program). 

Matthew

Bruce did the right thing for the right reason.

R

Matthew,

Yes, Malwarebytes is great. 


I was just concered that the thread and links are still up?  I haven't clicked on the thread to check myself....but was wanting to make sure Bruce removed the links himself rather than asking Pauli to, who is now banned.  I guess I'm confused as to why the thread and threat are still accessible on this site??

The thread is up but the recent posts with the malware are gone.

Thanks Matthew.

Thanks to Bruce

wrote on Jan 31^st, 2013 at 8:29pm:

That's a shame. He's the only one who has been attempting PE's for quite some time. He has been no more abrasive than any other people on this forum have been at various times. What a dumb reason to be kicked off a forum.

I don't like to ban anyone and yes it is a shame.  And if the offending posts had been removed by the author there wouldn't have been any banning.  Denying responsibility and blaming others isn't the best course of action in my view.

As someone who has had to deal with some pretty gnarly malware in the past I cannot in good conscience allow this site to knowingly expose visitors to sources of malware infection.

Bruce

Yes, thank you too Bruce, of course.  I just needed to know for sure that the threat was able to be removed and was gone.  Why wait for the one who posted it to be the one to remove it!   :o

To whomever said that Pauli was the only one attempting PEs...aren't you confusing Pauli with PauliEffect?  They are not the same person, right?

Again, thanks Bruce.  Thanks for keeping this site running safe for everyone. 

:)

Hi Vicky-

Most of us including me referred to PauliEffectt as Pauli just to keep it simple.

Bruce also referred to him as Pauli and banned the correct person.....i.e. Paulieffectt.

R

I noticed a couple weeks ago or so that there was a new member under the name of "Pauli", and I wondered if it was PauliEffect having created a new identity or was it a completely different person.  That name, "Pauli" is now gone from this site.

However, the username "PauliEffect" is still on the site.

Vicky-

If you go to Reply #54 on the bin laden thread, you'll see that PauliEffectt posted a picture of the drone that he claimed hit the Pentagon instead of Flight #77.

Then, he posted the same picture of the drone a few days ago on the Swedenborg thread.  It was then that the malware appeared.

He obviously was irritated that his conspiracy theory was challenged, he couldn't back up his theory when challenged, and it was then that the drone picture with malware appeared on the Swedenborg thread. 

And he specifically requested that anyone who wanted to continue the discussion re. his 9/11 nonsense do so on the Swedenborg thread.

It's pretty obvious what happened, and why.

R

Thanks Rondele.  I am not doubting what you're saying.  I'm glad this was caught and handled appropriately and fast.  I was just curious as to why the username "Pauli" is gone, which is who I thought was banned.  I thought being banned meant your username got deleted.  Which is why I wonder why "PauliEffect" is still here, not deleted. 

I'm just curious that's all. 

I haven't been following the threads you guys get all involved in.  I'm not interested in those same old Swedenberg conversations that continue and repeat.

But thanks for replying to me.

I have Norton on my home computer and it always seems to do the job. If I installed Malwarebytes would it interfere with Norton? Would my internet connection get slowed if two anti-virus applications were operative at the same time?

I personally hate and don't recommend Norton.  It has always bogged down my system.  I think Norton will slow you down even further if you have other AV software running.  I now have Kaspersky which I love.  I have been able to run Malwarebytes along with it, however when it comes time to remove the old version and download new, then Malwarebytes is in the way.  I have to delete Malwarebytes, take care of my AV, and then reinstall Malwarebytes.  Maybe that's just typical for any AV software.

I also have Kaspersky although I used to run Norton until it was obvious that Norton slowed down the computer to the point where I had no choice but to get rid of it.

The thing is, K did not show any warning re. the malware thread.  It was not until I downloaded malwarebytes that I got the warning.

So that bothers me, since I thought Kaspersky was not just an anti-virus program but also protected against malware.

I guess I'll need to find out!

R

Thank you for the responses. Fortunately, Norton doesn't slow down my computer.

recoverer wrote on Feb 1^st, 2013 at 4:28pm:

Thank you for the responses. Fortunately, Norton doesn't slow down my computer.

That's good, but did it warn you about the malware? 

R

It's been a few years ago, but I was running Norton and it was up to date and it didn't stop someone from connecting to my computer and making International phone calls that were billed to me.  Fortunately, I didn't have to pay for them... still, I'm just saying...

Every year I call the place where I have computer work done to ask what anti-virus software they recommend.  Apparently some are better than others some years.  This year they recommended McAfee or AVG plus a couple others that I don't recall the names of at the moment.  Actually for 3 years now both McAfee and AVG have been on their list.  McAfee tells you all the attempts made in the logs and also if you click on a potentially malicious site it will intervene with a warning and ask if you really want to go to that page.  You will have to click "yes" otherwise the page doesn't open.

K

I highly recommend Webroot. It is web-based, inexpensive and very light on your computer resources. But very effective. I have had no problems with three laptops in our house since getting it. And much less cumbersome than Norton or McAffee. Of course, I use a Mac while the rest of the family struggles with Windows!

My computer at work uses McAffee and has gotten invaded in a way my home computer hasn't.  A tech said this is because my place of employment doesn't keep a recent enough browser version and this is needed for McAffee. I don't know if this is true.

One time a Tech installed Maloware on my work computer in order to deal with a virus, even though this isn't what techs are supposed to officially do.

There is a site I stay away from while at work because I know that my computer will get attacked.

Sandboxie is a different approach to dealing with actual attacks and malware, that works well.

As this is a thread best suited for Off Topic, I gave an imaginary notification to Bruce about this and his failure to comply has resulted in a ban. Don't worry though as you will still have a chance to attend his workshops. He said he'll go back to eating prunes and do some light jogging while practising wiggling his jazz hands.

The elephant in this board is the spiritual malware known as PUL, and I doubt anyone will be banned for praising it with kind words. Unconditional does mean anything goes however anybody tries to revise its meaning. So with christian cheek turning. The jesus figure teaches you to hand out carte blanches, much to the benefit of the one filling in the number.

Though the build-up and reaction to Paulie's ban was awkward and helped by his own rigidity and the nurturing man boobs of Matt & Roger, what a pair of tits, I'm glad to see the amerikan do as I say and not as I do is more cherished than moral relativism. Good for you guys. Slap for a slap. Too bad the previous amerikan government doesn't get a slap on the wrist for letting the 911 incident slide. But who gives about that, right? It's a new day.

As for Paulie, if you're reading this, great lesson about beef jerky being passed around the agreeable circle, a circlejerky, basically.

Oh, I forgot, put an imaginary ban on all the participants here. Silence is beautiful too. But since I for one second will adopt a mother's alleged patience for her sons and daughters, I'll let it slide down the slippery slope. So however beautiful silence is, let's hunt her down like a witch, tie her to a pole and watch the fire.

Bobmonroe,

I for one never suggested that Pauli be banned - just so we are clear.  However, everytime you went on the Bin Laden thread, your computer port was attacked in such a covert way that only Malwarebytes picked it up but not AVG or other common antivirus programs.

I private messaged Pauli, and he did not respond.  Others found the same malware linked to his pictures. 

You seem to think that cultivating PUL means that you can never take action to do anything but accept any attack.  Morihei Ueshiba, commonly known as O'Sensei was the founder of aikido - the martial art which uses the attacker's energy to either throw him or immobilize and end the attack. 

O'sensei used to say that aikido was founded in love.  It was a very difficult concept, to see the attacker get thrown in a heap.  But for him, the correct application of technique to disarm an opponent could only be applied with love.  The love was the knowledge of the attack and the best response to end the situation quickly - his definition of love.

Love doesn't mean allowing anything to happen, no matter what the outcome.  You rage against people who aspire toward love banning others (implying that their love is just for show).  How self-righteous of you!.  You would never ban anyone, would you, Bob?  You simply would let the malware run through the computers of the hundreds of people who might go through the thread.  Right?  I mean hey, by your school of thought, if you are loving, truly loving, then you can not do anything which might cause discomfort toward anyone, for any reason?  (If you feel differently, let me know). 

If a person is being beaten in an alley, would you walk the other way?  I mean if you have the live-and-let live  attitude, perhaps the mugger was just exercising their free will, right?  No sense in defending the victim, right, because that would not be loving (since you would have to enter into a conflict). 

No one on this site is claiming to be JC.  But even JC had his moments, such as getting angry at the moneylenders, overturning their tables in the temple, and giving some negative sentences to towns and villages which had not recognized his ministry. 

To my way of thinking,  expressing love does not require passivity.  Acceptance of the situation, yes.  So if one tries to harm you, and you can not dissuade them, then defending yourself can be done with love.  Love is not (as i feel you assume) equated with inactivity or passivity.  You can genuinely love others, but act defensively (such as banning Pauli when he refuses to respond to the malware) when you are attacked.   

Tell me, Bob, how would you have handled the malware?  If Pauli refused to acknowledge or remove it.  What would your ideal solution, based in love, have been? 

I get where you are coming from.  You don't like elitism, or cliques.  You have a live-and-let live attitude.  You are particularly irritated by those who seem sanctimonious, and pious, but then appear to act in a selfish way.  I do respect that about you.  Even if you called me a man-boob


M

I'd keep it simple and paraben free Doc: check if it is malware, remove any malware from posts without asking, give a warning to the poster, and a continuation would mean GTFO. More action and sideburns, less knitting and drama.

People can exchange pleasantries all day long and still be going nowhere. Which is ok. I'm goading/trolling for the heart- and base notes in your perfumes, rather than the über sweet citrusy top note.

Ok Bob,

Point well taken.  But you must admit that if you ran a website like this, the uploading of spyware might be an immediate dealbreaker for you.  Really, what you  described is not much different from what happened (Bruce messaged Pauli, asked him to remove the spyware, Pauli declined, denied that there was a problem - and Bruce banned him (which is the GTFO phase you mentioned).

Most of us, if contacted by the site administrator would try to comply with the basics, even if we believed in conspiracy theories, etc. 

Peace Bob