JonnyTech
commented
5 years ago Please supply a full log, not just what you think is necessary. Are you running Windows XP?
Closed NoviXPT closed 5 years ago
JonnyTech
commented
5 years ago Please supply a full log, not just what you think is necessary. Are you running Windows XP?
Ibuprophen
commented
5 years ago I just selected the link and it worked instantly...
~Ibuprophen
pbatard
commented
5 years ago Duplicate of #1232. Nothing to do with Rufus, you need to make sure your version of Windows is up to date when it comes to accessing HTTPS sites.
For instance, if you can't download https://rufus.ie/files/syslinux-6.04/ldlinux.sys when using Internet Explorer, then it means this is an OS issue.
Follow the advice from #1232, and next time, please actually search the issue tracker with the error message you got (if you do that #1232 is the first issue you'll get) and paste a full log.
Closing.
pbatard
commented
5 years ago Also, just in case you wonder, because we had to switch web servers, the check for update is going to remain broken until we release Rufus 3.4, which fixes compatibility with the new server. But this is unrelated to your issue.
pbatard
commented
5 years ago You could always detect the download issue
I do. It's mentioned explicitly in the log with a message that states that the SSL library being used by the system is too old.
then take actions from there(like alerting the user or using an alternative download method)
I'm sorry but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on platforms (Windows 7) that is going to reach End of Life soon (Jan 2020) and that simply happen not to be able to download files because important system updates, such as the ability to access modern SSL sites were not applied. Spending time fixing Windows 7 obsolete behaviours is just not a good use of anybody's development time.
Also, if this is not your issue, then please provide your full log, because, as far as I'm concerned, since you don't provide anything, I'm going to assume that you are running into the Windows 7 HTTPS issue like OP.
pbatard
commented
5 years ago This is on Windows 10
Rufus x86 v3.4.1430 (Portable) Windows version: Windows 10 64-bit (Build 17134) Syslinux versions: 4.07/2013-07-25, 6.03/2014-10-06 Grub versions: 0.4.6a, 2.02 System locale ID: 0x0409 Will use default UI locale 0x0409 SetLGP: Successfully set NoDriveTypeAutorun policy to 0x0000009E Localization set to 'en-US' Found USB 2.0 device 'ZTE MMC Storage USB Device' (19D2:1225) 1 device found Disk type: Removable, Disk size: 32 GB, Sector size: 512 bytes Cylinders: 3822, Tracks per cylinder: 255, Sectors per track: 63 Partition type: MBR, NB Partitions: 1 Disk ID: 0x24F767EC Drive has a Zeroed Master Boot Record Partition 1: Type: FAT32 LBA (0x0c) Size: 29.3 GB (31435259904 bytes) Start Sector: 8192, Boot: Yes Scanning image... ISO analysis: Image is an ISO9660 image Will use '/isolinux/isolinux.cfg' for Syslinux Detected Syslinux version: 6.04/20180907 (from '/isolinux/isolinux.bin') Disk image analysis: Image has an unknown Master Boot Record Image is a bootable disk image ISO label: 'Ubuntu 18.10 amd64' Size: 1.9 GB (Projected) Uses: Syslinux/Isolinux v6.04 Uses: EFI Note: This ISO uses symbolic links, which will not be replicated due to file system limitations. Because of this, some features from this image may not work... Using image: ubuntu-18.10-desktop-amd64.iso (1.9 GB) Downloading https://rufus.ie/files/syslinux-6.04/20180907/ldlinux.sys Unable to send request: The attempt to connect to the server failed. Extended version was not found, trying main version... Downloading https://rufus.ie/files/syslinux-6.04/ldlinux.sys Unable to send request: The attempt to connect to the server failed. Could not download the file - cancellingFrom what I can see the log shows two URLs the first URL is a 404 - https://rufus.ie/files/syslinux-6.04/20180907/ldlinux.sys the second URL works for me in Firefox I never tried in Internet Explorer/Edge because I removed that when setting up Windows.
Then this is not the same issue. Unless you were seeing Unable to send request: This system's SSL library is too old to be able to access this website. in the log, you shouldn't have piggybacked on this issue as your problem is completely different.
the first URL is a 404
Yes, that is normal. Rufus always tries two URLs, the first one, which is constructed according to the version used by the ISO, is in case there is a need for a custom version of Syslinux to be used, which isn't the case here, so, since we didn't place a custom ldlinux.sys, this will result in a 404. Then, if Rufus finds out there's no custom ldlinux.sys required, it attempts to download the vanilla version, as released by the Syslinux developers.
Unable to send request: The attempt to connect to the server failed.
This is a pure environmental issue on your side
Something in your environment is preventing Rufus from connecting to the server. It doesn't matter whether Firefox or other browsers work, because it is perfectly possible, through (mis)configuration, to prevent an application from being able to download from the internet while letting others do so. Especially, granting a download exception for browsers and preventing all other applications from being able to connect to the internet is commonly used in corporate firewalls.
I hope you can understand that if you can download the file through Firefox but Rufus tells you it cannot, whereas people using vanilla versions of Windows 10 don't have this problem at all, then it's entirely up to you to figure out the issue and fix it.
Especially, considering that you indicate that you removed Internet Explorer, which I assume also includes the STANDARD LIBRARIES that application can use to download files (WinInet and so on), I think your problem can be explained very easily and I hope you can realize that it would be crazy to ask a developer to embed custom internet libraries in their app, instead of using the standard system ones, just so that the handful of people who go heavy handed on removing system tools and libraries, without fully measuring the consequences of what they are doing, have an easier life.
You screwed up your system, you fix it.
pbatard
commented
5 years ago Did you just remove your earlier comment with the log? Please don't do that! I had to post it back with your entry, so that OTHERS running into the same error message can find this issue and maybe realize that they needed to whitelist Rufus, if that is their issue.
Heraes-git
commented
5 years ago Duplicate of #1232. Nothing to do with Rufus, you need to make sure your version of Windows is up to date when it comes to accessing HTTPS sites.
We're not supposed to know what technology you use in your software. And never an operating sofwtare has to be updated to run https : it's only a browser/software matter (protocole).
For instance, if you can't download https://rufus.ie/files/syslinux-6.04/ldlinux.sys when using Internet Explorer, then it means this is an OS issue.
I can access it on my Thinkpad R400 with Windows 7 on Chrome,but still, Rufus can't access.
Closing.
No, you won't close anything like that because you just want to avoid thinking.
I'm sorry but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on platforms (Windows 7) that is going to reach End of Life soon (Jan 2020) and that simply happen not to be able to download files because important system updates, such as the ability to access modern SSL sites were not applied. Spending time fixing Windows 7 obsolete behaviours is just not a good use of anybody's development time.
And we won't waste our time with an arrogant developer who has a superiority complex and think that everybody on the planet has the minimal hardware required to run Windows 10. You' clearly lack of IT skills and experience, and seem unable to adopt a retro-compatibility philosophy. Just imagine that when upgrading to USB3.0, manufacturers had say "Now we won't waste our time with people still having too old hardwares, go buy a new PC or stfu".
You're completly megalomaniac and you won't excuse anything by assuming that everyone had deleted some IE and obscure libraries. I don't know about HTTPS libraries, but if you suppose that Chrome and Firefox developers had acted like you do and assumed that Windows would provide them all the libraries they needed, you're completly out of the reality. Developers HAS to embed technologies they want to use, if OS don't. W7 doesn't offers HTTPS protocols/libraries ? Add it into your soft, or don't use HTTPS. Period. There's still one year of support for W7 ; and even after that time, many people will still be on W7 for various reasons. Swallow it, or get out. Don't forget that people use RUFUS or similar software to install Linux on old machines. With your mentality, there would be no place for small organizations, and donation of old PCs.
Now if you think I'm gonna upgrade all my laptops to Windows 10, not only you're dreaming, but you'll lose some followers because people will use an other software that Rufus. Bye bye mister arrogant.
pbatard
commented
5 years ago I can access it on my Thinkpad R400 with Windows 7 on Chrome,but still, Rufus can't access.
Try the same with Internet Explorer on Windows 7.
Chrome and Firefox embed their own SSL libraries, which is why they can access the site. But IE, like Rufus, relies on the OS ones, so it can't.
And again, once people get their Windows 7 up to date, they can access the web site through IE or Rufus.
No, you won't close anything like that because you just want to avoid thinking.
I don't want to avoid thinking. What I want to avoid is have to develop a full blown browser library, that adds custom support for up to date SSL, just so that the people who have not kept their Windows 7 up to date can continue to use an outdated OS (with outdated applying to the fact that not all updates have been applied here, rather than the OS itself).
and think that everybody on the planet has the minimal hardware required to run Windows 10.
That's not at all what I am advising. Windows 7 users can absolutely access the SSL downloads in Rufus, as long as they have applied all the current Windows updates. I tested it, others confirmed it, and, if you read what I stated above as "Windows 7 users should just upgrade to Windows 10", then you are interpreting things wrong.
The " because important system updates, such as the ability to access modern SSL sites were not applied" is meant to convey exactly that: Provided you have applied all the Windows system update available, you should have no trouble downloading files from the Rufus servers in Rufus.
So, instead of going on a rant about "arrogant developers", you may first want to validate whether your claim ("Developer is asking everyone to upgrade to Windows 10") has any shred of truth.
you won't excuse anything by assuming that everyone had deleted some IE and obscure libraries.
Because I have ACTUALLY TESTED my software on fully up to date vanilla Windows 7 machines (not on VM but real hardware), and found no issue whatsoever when downloading Syslinux files from the current Rufus servers, and I also know that the vast majority of Rufus users on Windows 7 also have no issue, then I can only logically assume that, if someone running Windows 7, and who has applied all the system updates from Microsoft, is still unable to download in Rufus, it means that they must have altered their system.
Especially, the error reported by one of the users above (Unable to send request: The attempt to connect to the server failed.) has nothing to do with the SSL issue, since the SSL issue generates a very explicit message, and is clearly something that does not apply to every Windows 7 users. Plus that user was running Rufus on Windows 10 anyway. So I am rightfully treating it as a pure environmental issue, as I haven't gotten any similar report from other users and in all my testing on vanilla Windows machines, I have never gotten that issue and have always been able to download files from the Rufus servers.
Developers HAS to embed technologies they want to use, if OS don't.
And in this case, if you DO have an updated Windows 7 system, the OS does. Which is why Rufus will continue to rely on the OS to provide SSL functionality, instead of embedding its own, especially with all the risks and drawbacks it would create. Ergo, while your assertion is correct, your premise is completely wrong.
W7 doesn't offers HTTPS protocols/libraries ?
W7 does, and they work just fine for accessing the Rufus servers unless you failed to apply all the updates that Microsoft invites you to apply from Windows Update. Again, I have VALIDATED this repeatedly.
Next time, before rushing into a completely erroneous conclusion about what developers expect their users to do (because, ALL I am expecting here is for Windows 7 users to have an up to date version with all the major Microsoft updates applied, in which case there is no issue at all), you may want to spend a bit more time trying to understand what the developer is actually stating, and maybe give rest to the idea that all developers are arrogant megalomaniac pricks that don't give a damn about users running on older but still supported OSes.
Bye bye mister arrogant.
And a good day to you, mister incorrect assumption.
Hopefully, the next people who comment on this thread will take some time to actually read what's being said, and not rush themselves into apoplexy from preconceived and utterly false ideas about what a developer is actually requesting users to do, which, in this case, is only to ensure that they use an OS with all the recommended system updates applied, be it Windows 10, Windows 8.x or Windows 7.
Heraes-git
commented
5 years ago So, let me clear one thing :
So you won't make me believe that I was in fault during the communication, nor that I made any logical mistake. YOU seem to lack of any logical chaining comprehension, assuming that everybody is in your head and that you can just make authoritarian assertion with no more explaination than "I won't wast my time with people staying on too old system" or "you should have made something".
Your explanation about updates are right : if people experience HTTP connection problem with your software, it should be or that updates are missing (I believe you, while not verifying it actually) or that updates are installed but that the only cause can be local modification.
That being said, you didn't provided that explanation at any moment before I spotted your arrogance, wich by the way is still valid even if you try to cover your trace with retroactive justifications. You just said at one moment to check that our system was up to date, but you didn't precised if we have to update from W7 to W10 or just stay on W7 but "fully updated" : and given your next response about "not wasting your time with platform that won't be supported after 2020", it was absolutely normal to conclude that you were saying that W7 was too old, was the cause of the problem, and that we had to update it to its next version (W10).
Now that's a time for me to do a fancy conclusion like yours in your last comment : hopefully, people will carefully read what has been said on this present thread, and understand that I'm fully right about yourself and that I wasn't rushing. Now if you have problem in communication, just check if you're not actually the one who is rushing and lacking of pedagogy and details because of a certain lack of patience.
And please, don't be sophist by using your last comment as a so-called "proof" of your patience, when there is some paragraphs above that prove that you weren't. Don't reverse the facts chronology. You seem to love sending hidden messages in your comments, and to run off responsability afterward.
Bye.
PS : next time, be sure not to enter a discussion with someone by using that tone, without verifying that your speaker has the cognitive ability to notice contradictions and sophism. You made the mistake of hidding your fault and assuming that your speaker was dumb and unable to follow you word by word, and that's a wrong premisse ;) Re-read yourself before assuming that we don't read you correctly.
pbatard
commented
5 years ago about YOUR assertions on W7 environment, and just said that it's a W7 related problem (period) to the people BEFORE my arrival here.
Assertion? Nope.
OP reported Unable to send request: This system's SSL library is too old to be able to access this website. which is something that can really only happen on Windows 7.
So, while replying to that, AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART, I pointed to #1232, which provides further details about the issue and indicates, clearly, (but feel free to dispute that if you want) that you can very much get W7 to work if you just install system updates.
Given what you said, we can only understand that W7 would have some problem with HTTPS/SSL libraries, and that you don't want to do ANYTHING.
Bullshit. Don't confuse "can only" and "might, but only if one chooses not to look at the explicitly linked issue, as they should (especially if they plan to go on a tangent and attack the developer)".
If a developer links to an issue and says this is a duplicate of this one, you are expected to look at the duplicated issue, since, OF COURSE, you should assert that said developer will not want to repeat themselves over and over again when they already provided details in the original issue. This is even more true if the first thing you're gonna settle on is to attack the developer for being arrogant. If you have an accusation to make, you'd better make doubly sure that this accusation stands by doing your research.
So, clearly, now you're trying to save face about the fact, because you seemingly decided that looking at the original duplicate issue was beneath you even as you were readying yourself to throw epithets at a developer, you interpreted this whole thread wrong.
Nice attempt, but that's not gonna fly.
I corrected you about this lazy behavior, and spotted your arrogance.
LOL. Who's arrogant here? The person who, more than one week after I indicated that they completely misread the situation, are still trying to save face by trying to pretend that it wasn't their fault they misread it, and are accusing the other party of behaviour that simply cannot apply? Or the person who indicated at length that they didn't need to fix an issue that has been demonstrated not to require any fix besides applying system updates? How's that arrogant? Or even lazy?
Be very very mindful of trying to bullshit your way into continuing to want to accuse someone of behaviour, simply because you don't want to have to retract an original assumption that has been demonstrated wrong (and which you also now agree was wrong, even if you are trying to use the all too classic excuse of "Well, even if I was wrong, it's someone else's fault", which I will dispute by simply indicating that, the only way you could ever have a chance of pushing that kind of excuse is if I hadn't clearly pointed to #1232, which I did, in the very first sentence of my very first reply.
And now you come with a full set of explaination that seem, about W7 updates, to be coherent and understandable. But you try to use it to reverse the situation as if the future was replacing the past.
Why do I get the feeling that you still haven't read #1232. If you had, then I fail to see how you could write yet another bullshit statement.
Remember, here's how things went.
This system's SSL library is too old to be able to access this website.So you won't make me believe that I was in fault during the communication, nor that I made any logical mistake.
Doesn't matter what you believe. People can look at facts and decide for themselves.
As far as I am concerned, you completely failed to pick on 2 elements you should have picked (#1232) and quoting of a post that no longer seems to be there, that should have let you know that your initial interpretation of what I was saying might not be what you assumed it was.
And now you are trying to raise hell in a feeble attempt to point how it wasn't really your fault (but somehow mine) and how it was natural that you'd failed to pick on the elements I pointed to, rather than admit your mistakes. That's not very mature behaviour, if you ask me.
YOU seem to lack of any logical chaining comprehension
I couldn't have said it better.
Your explanation about updates are right
Finally. We need to get this far before you tentatively admit (through sleigh of wording) that you had misinterpreted things. However, you immediately reduce your first foray into mature arguing territory to nothing by continuing with:
given your next response about "not wasting your time with platform that won't be supported after 2020", it was absolutely normal to conclude that you were saying that W7 was too old, was the cause of the problem, and that we had to update it to its next version (W10).
Not really. The meaning that was meant to be conveyed was "Yes, if I really wanted to, I could add custom SSL library in Rufus so that even W7 people, who for one reason or another haven't kept their system up to date, avoid this issue, but since W7 will officially end being supported in 2020, even if I was willing to work on that, it wouldn't make much sense".
So, here we are once again, with you completely misinterpreting what's written, and trying to justify yourself with a feeble "There can only be one way to interpret this statement, even if it doesn't follow with what the author of that statement repeatedly pointed to (such as issue #1232)."
If you read #1232, there is no way you can interpret that statement to mean anything but what I stated above. And even in the absolute, you need to be careful about isolating one part of the sentence (as you do since you very misleadingly chose not to quote the "and that simply happen not to be able to download files because important system updates, such as the ability to access modern SSL sites were not applied" that follows, which completely diminishes the assertion you are trying to make here).
And then same goes for misinterpreting that a "make sure your version of Windows is up to date" (my exact words from the first sentence of my first reply to OP) as the completely erroneous "make sure you use the latest version of Windows (i.e. Windows 10)" as it is pretty clear is how you chose to read what I wrote... if you read it at all before going on a rant about developer arrogance and whatnot.
Sorry but, even if there is content missing from this issue (that I had no involvement whatsoever in removing) that might be helpful in filling some gaps, there are way too many sentences of mine you need to misinterpret as well as elements you need to ignore for your "One could only interpret things the way I did" to be receivable.
hopefully, people will carefully read what has been said on this present thread, and understand that I'm fully right about yourself and that I wasn't rushing.
I think, considering the above, people will have no trouble coming to the conclusion that the only thing you are trying to accomplish here, and poorly at that, is see if you can save face after it has been clearly demonstrated to you that not only you grossly misinterpreted what was written, and then, rather than admit just that, insisted that, even if you were factually proved wrong, it wasn't really your fault anyway.
I also like the nice touch of "we" and overgeneralization about behaviour that you (of course) don't provide evidence for in your final statements, as more desperate attempts to try to save face.
So I guess now I'll just have to wait on one more bullshit post of yours about how you weren't rushing in your initial reply (which, from what I've seen so far, I seriously doubt) and how, even if one reads #1232 and the statements I pointed to carefully, there's only "one true way" of interpreting what I wrote (yours), even if it goes in the complete opposite direction of what I did mean and what people who carefully read all the elements would also conclude it means.
Personally, I'd much rather let people judge for themselves, by pointing them to clear evidence, rather than fabricate a bold statement of what I'd like other people to agree with, especially if that statement is meant to include disparaging blanket qualifiers about the general behaviour of another person (which is never a good sign when someone is trying to convince others that they have both the logical and moral high ground on a specific topic)...
Heraes-git
commented
5 years ago Assertion? Nope.
OP reported
Unable to send request: This system's SSL library is too old to be able to access this website.which is something that can really only happen on Windows 7.
We're not supposed to know that. You may know that, but we're NOT in your head. That's why I pointed out a pedagogic problem, and an arrogant mentality of yours.
So, while replying to that, AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART, I pointed to #1232, which provides further details about the issue and indicates, clearly, (but feel free to dispute that if you want) that you can very much get W7 to work if you just install system updates.
No, as I said, you didn't specified if we have to update from W7 to W10 (wich can be seen as an update) or just update W7 to its full set (wich can be also seen as an update) : and as I said, it constitues a semantic ambiguous meaning that you used for your sophism.
You won't force me to repeat that one more time.
Bullshit. Don't confuse "can only" and "might, but only if one chooses not to look at the explicitly linked issue, as they should (especially if they plan to go on a tangent and attack the developer)".
I'm sorry but you don't mean anything here, and just get bogged down into your sophism about "us having to be in your head and to have your insights". I perfectly spotted that your answer were NOT giving any clear information BEFORE I spotted your arrogance, and you keep trying to say that we made a mistake, and that I made one. You play with words like "can only" or "might", but what makes you believe there is a difference that I should have know, is PRECISELY what I explained you we cannot know.
So, YOU have ot do some efforts to make you be understood.
If a developer links to an issue and says this is a duplicate of this one, you are expected to look at the duplicated issue, since, OF COURSE, you should assert that said developer will not want to repeat themselves over and over again when they already provided details in the original issue. This is even more true if the first thing you're gonna settle on is to attack the developer for being arrogant. If you have an accusation to make, you'd better make doubly sure that this accusation stands by doing your research.
Wrong : I don't have to suspect that there would be any more information in the so-called duplicated issue, nor to stop reading the actual thread. However, I read something making me understand that W7 was guilty of being too old, and that a developer won't do any effort to adapt his software.
Thus, this is enough to not go on a previous thread, and to conclude that the developer is arrogant.
So, clearly, now you're trying to save face about the fact, ... blablabla... , you interpreted this whole thread wrong.
And you won't save the face by refusing to see how you're acting like an arrogant individual on this thread, by having clearly given us enough informations to conclude things. We don't have to go for further informations when you're clearly saying us to update W7 to W10 with semantic ambiguity and insinuations.
Nice attempt, but that's not gonna fly.
Nice try, but you won't reverse the situation, Mr sophist !
LOL. Who's arrogant here? The person who, more than one week after I indicated that they completely misread the situation...
No, you, who are completly irresponsible and childish, and clumsily try to hide a possible lazyness when developping, wich is being transferred on your answers on forums. You misread YOURSELF and try to hide the thing. I suspect it comes from a HTTPS/SSL implementing issue you had at one moment, and wich made you angry about people still being in W7 and forcing you to adapt your soft. But hey, that's just my intuition ! And the fact that you corrected the problem doesn't contradict that psychological aspect we can feel in your hints. ;)
... blablabla... Be very very mindful of trying to bullshit your way... blablabla
Ewww. That's awkward for a non-arrogant developer.
Why do I get the feeling that you still haven't read #1232. If you had, then I fail to see how you could write yet another bullshit statement.
As I said, we don't have, given what you said in this actual thread. You keep failing in logical chaining understanding, and chronology or even "mind theory" (knowing what others can know).
The rest of your comment (from "Remember, here's how things went." to the end) is a repetition of what has been previously said, as a LOOP. I won't enter it. /!\
You fail understanding that we don't have to look an other thread BEFORE reading the actual one and your answers + your answers are giving us informations that can make us to conclude that W7 is lacking HPPTS/SSL libraries and that we have to update it to W10 (your insinuations).
I think people will see more clearly what kind of individual and developer you are, and that your tens of paragraphs of repetitive information and constant looping like a child trying desesperatly to defend himself will play against you. I don't have anything more to add to the conversation wich is constant ad-hominem coming from you (assuming that we're too fool and incompetent to read the present thread + have to read an other one before reading this actual one + have not to read your comments here or have to interpret them the way you want), and chronology reversion.
Next time, stop assuming that people are too stupid to see your lazyness in development sweating in your hints about updates. Just admit you failed to develop correctly your software or to make you understood (wich can happen when there is a psychological slip). It will make the discussion shorter and you won't pass for being arrogant.
Heraes-git
commented
5 years ago Not mentioning that you forced all original thread titles like "impossible to download ldlinux.sys", wich a are correct bug tracking title related to what happen to users, to be renamed "This system's SSL library is too old to be able to access this website" (like the thread #1232) or flagued as dupplicates, wich are more oriented titles corresponding to YOUR opinion on the problem.
That's a sort of controlling I saw on many forums, coming from people who can't accept that users aren't technicians, and who can't accept their own fault in the bug occurence.
pbatard
commented
5 years ago Congratulations.
I think people reading your last reply will be able to make their mind indeed.
Saves me a lot of time demonstrating once again that, before you start to throw epithets at someone, on account that you wrongly assumed they were stating something that they weren't going to do, as well as accusing the other party of exactly the kind of behaviour you are displaying (ad hominem much?), you might want to cool your head down a bit and actually peruse through facts first.
The only consolation I have is that, even if you don't want to admit it here, you'll probably learn from your mistake and thread a bit more carefully next time you want start going on a tangent about how someone is lazy, arrogant, childish or any other nice ad hominem qualifier you feel like slinging around, and maybe pay a bit more attention to what the person you have decided to clash against actually wrote (especially prior to the statement that appears to irk you). This way, you will avoid having to make the problematic choice of either admitting that mistake as your own, or trying to pin the blame of your misinterpretation onto somebody else...
PS: Renaming an tracker issue title to the exact error message users see in the log when they encounter that issue is the logical way to ensure that, when they search for that error in the tracker, they will easily locate the solution they are looking for. Unless you want to dispute that too, users don't have to be technicians to copy/paste an error message in an issue tracker in order to find out if an issue for the same error they have has already been opened.
Heraes-git
commented
5 years ago Thanks ! And I will keep being sure to spot arrogance from developers in their attempt to say that we should migrate to the last version of an OS, and then go backwards to try to cover their traces. I will also keep working on redirecting people on right entitled threads like this present one, and encourage them to not be ashamed of just naming things in relationship with their own problem just because a lazy dev wants us to know the origin of a problem before its real diagnostic.
PS: Renaming an tracker issue title to the exact error message users see in the log when they encounter that issue is the logical way to ensure that, when... blablabla
Hahaha, this is amazing ! :D You keep trying to reverse the chronology and run off your mind-theory deficiency. We're not supposed to look into a log just because YOU, as a developer, can't help them by looking into it by yourself because you know the SSL problem in advance. The error message is "can't download a thing", not "your OS isn't enough updated to have a correct SSL library" !
pbatard
commented
5 years ago Anything else you want to add? The more you do, the more interesting it becomes, and I would indeed very much like for other users to be pointed to this issue as a very insightful cautionary tale of how not to behave, once you realise you have misinterpreted something.
Heraes-git
commented
5 years ago Do you assume you're forcfully right, and that we have to go on a public trial just because people will necessarily be on your side and that contradicting you is a crime ? I also think that your behavior is not a good example. Do I call for a popular revenge so far ?
pbatard
commented
5 years ago Please don't stop now. Keep going.
Heraes-git
commented
5 years ago I won't, I'm not like that ;) This is not supposed to be an harrasment. Everything as been said.
pbatard
commented
5 years ago Oh, but I insist. If only to figure out who you believe is harassing whom, and even more so as I think I can turn this into a very educational exercise when it comes to letting people understand what an ad hominem is, and how to spot it.
Besides, I don't have much of anything better to entertain myself with right now and I sure wouldn't mind seeing you demonstrate once again that you don't appear to understand what an ad hominem is as well as how much further you are willing to prop your "Even if I was completely wrong to assume a developer was saying Windows 7 users should just update to Windows 10, not only it wasn't my fault at all to have missed the obvious hints, but furthermore despite all evidence (which I will oh-so-conveniently qualify as 'retroactive whatever', by asserting that the developer is able to completely turn the meaning of what they did or wrote previously to mean something completely different) I will still stand by my earlier misinterpretation and feel entitled to throw more ad hominems."
Ergo, just in case this needs to be spelled out to you:
Of course, it's hard to say exactly which statements of mine you chose to interpret as ad hominem, but these are the most obvious candidates I can think of, so I'm highlighting those.
Unfortunately however, and from my experience, it looks like a lot of people confuse disparaging qualifiers applied to statements they made, after (or before) they are also separately deconstructed for their intrinsic flaws through other means, and where the qualifier comes as a shortcut, as ad hominem.
Now, if I wanted to, I could go over all the statements you made, that were devoid of any specific context that can only be qualified as either name calling or ad hominem. But there are simply too many of them so, as an exercise to the interested reader, I'll let them search for "arrogant", "lazy", "child/childish" and a bunch of terms which, when repeated in the volume you seem to be willing to use them, I would assert could also qualify as harassment.
Thus, with the above said, I can at last indicate that I a good chuckle at your "constant ad-hominem coming from you", from earlier today, especially as it is itself an obvious ad hominem...
Therefore, I can only hope that you will feel inclined to post some more replies, for everybody's enjoyment. After all, you wouldn't want to let me have the last word, would you?
Heraes-git
commented
5 years ago Oh, but I insist.
FAIL ^^. You were the guy insinuating, with "Please don't stop now. Keep going". that I was trolling and that I should stop. Now you see ? You're the one restarting the process.
If only to figure out who you believe is harassing whom,
You are actually the one harrassing the other because of the previous point. What's funny is you try to make your opponent to be accused of trolling and harrassing you, and try to affraid him to talk again as if having the last word were childish... and then, as soon as you think you obtained the silence, you steal the last word :D
But responding to someone on a forum can't be perceived as an harrassment, just based on that last-word effect. Or else, I could accuse you to harrass me as well.
Moreover, that last-word fear strategy is a childish method : it avoids you to win a discussion with a real argument. And I guess this show us that you don't have one.
and even more so as I think I can turn this into a very educational exercise when it comes to letting people understand what an ad hominem is,
You always assert that people will understand X, and just repeat the last concept used be your speaker (here, the word "ad-hominem"). I bet you don't understand the definitions of things, and think people will understand at your place, this to keep your mental domination on them and keep patronizing them like you did at the very begining of this thread (by assuming that people were stupid not to know what was the cause of the problem + insinuating things that you would blame after).
Besides, I don't have much of anything better to entertain myself with right now
Arrogant sarcastic troll spotted ^^. You're clearly saying "I not in a reasonable process, I just don't care of what people say, I will just shut their mouth by ignoring anything they say, this collapsing their reasoning in order to win. And that's gonna be a game for me, giving me much pleasure.". That's basically how sophists an trolls proceed. So now I guess you're spotted. ♥
and I sure wouldn't mind seeing you demonstrate once again that... blablabla
LOL. You're insinuating that you don't care of what others say, and then you assume that I will read you ?? Hahaha. :D This guy is amazing. What a pretentious !
As I said before, I won't enter your loop again. You're constantly ingnoring what we say, and repeat the same mistakes with badly syntaxed phrases as :
Qualifying incorrect statements, as "bullshit", not an ad hominem (remember, for this to be an ad hominem, it would need to be interpretable as X circumstantially suffers from general flaw Y).
... wich are unreadable. Not mentioning that anyway, nobody has to read you, given your level of contempt.
No, saying "it would need to be interpretable as X circumstancially suffers from general flaw Y" isn't a valid syntax (even in your language) nor an explanation of what ad-hominem is. Let me give you a lesson by showing you a real SKILL in logic and philosophy :
See ? :D That's way different than the pavement you constantly fill with hollowed statements. You're just mumbling things to pass for an intellectual, but you're just a kid trying to cover its traces as I spotted it before about your hints. ;) And THAT's the core of the ad-hominem accusation I made about you.
And as usual, you try to cover your previous mistakes (wich had a covering purpose too ^^) with nested deny and re-chewing of the whole, with bad formulation capability.
Not mentioning the things you just forget, because it's more easy to keep saying the same thing :
Stating that you misinterpreted a statement, clearly nothing to do with ad hominem (It would be one if I was saying "You are, in the whole circumstance of this issue, incapable to properly interpret most of what you read")
First,it lacks a verb in the first phrase ^^ ("clearly nothing to do..." isn't syntaxically valid). Secondly, I never said that your ad-hominem has something to do about me (I was talking about your contempt about others, before my arrival). Thirdly, you clearly said to me that I wasn't able to read :
Next time, before rushing into a completely erroneous conclusion about what developers expect their users to do... [...] ... you may want to spend a bit more time trying to understand what the developer is actually stating,
Hopefully, the next people who comment on this thread will take some time to actually read what's being said,
So, here we are once again, with you completely misinterpreting what's written
So I guess now I'll just have to wait on one more bullshit post of yours about how you weren't rushing in your initial reply
So you clearly said, several times, that I was unable to interpret things correctly. This isn't very different from saying "you don't understand most of you read". See, you're again using insinuations, and trying to cover them with deny !
Now that's me who is enjoying this debate ☺
PS :
And you try to inject it in the ad-homined accusation. Here the chronological map :
You're mixing two things in order to destroy them together, when in fact they all are valid, alone as a single element. That's a sophist unconscious method.
pbatard
commented
5 years ago You were the guy insinuating, with "Please don't stop now. Keep going". that I was trolling and that I should stop.
Once again, you're interpreting things wrong. Trolling was never mentioned, and the fact that you interpret this sentence as an accusation of trolling tells a lot.
At this stage, and this appears to have been the case for some time, you have to fabricate hidden (and unprovable) explanations, or throw character traits, to address everything that has now been presented to disprove your point and especially your continued misinterpretation of my initial statement. Of course, I have no doubt that you firmly believe that you are in the right to venture these hypotheses out of the blue but, unfortunately, that is not how arguing works. But I'll go into more details about this below.
So, no, I was not accusing you of trolling (especially as the behaviour I was inviting you to pursue doesn't match my definition of "trolling"). But I suppose that, at this stage, it isn't much of an ad hominem to state that you'd continue to insist that, regardless of what the other party indicates they meant (or didn't mean), you will continue to insist that only your interpretation should be taken as gospel,
You are actually the one harrassing the other because of the previous point.
Thanks for answering that question.
as soon as you think you obtained the silence, you steal the last word :D
If I really wanted to obtain the last word, wouldn't you agree that the much easier thing to do would be to first ban you, and then post one last time? After all, it is in my power to ban whoever I want from this issue tracker.
But responding to someone on a forum can't be perceived as an harrassment, just based on that last-word effect. Or else, I could accuse you to harrass me as well.
Agreed. On the other hand, continuously accusing someone of being "arrogant", "lazy", "pretentious" and so on is harassment.
Moreover, that last-word fear strategy is a childish method
I don't know. It seems to work exactly as I wanted so far... 😄
You always assert that people will understand X
Yes. Sue me for asserting that people are generally smart and can read what is presented to them... rather than jump to the wrong conclusion.
Arrogant sarcastic troll spotted ^^. You're clearly saying "I not in a reasonable process, I just don't care of what people say, I will just shut their mouth by ignoring anything they say, this collapsing their reasoning in order to win. And that's gonna be a game for me, giving me much pleasure.".
And here we have exactly the kind of reply I was hoping to see from you again.
As I stated earlier, your lengthy reply from a few posts prior demonstrates everything one needs to know about your "arguing" process. So there's not much else for me but to just enjoy watching just how far down you are willing to go. I am both genuinely interested and entertained.
You're constantly ingnoring what we say
Yet I am quoting you extensively...
This guy is amazing. What a pretentious !
Name calling. Again, never a good way to try to demonstrate that your arguing is the soundest.
nobody has to read you, given your level of contempt.
Here is is. A perfect example of ad hominem
First, let's start with the definition from Wikipedia:
If you know your latin, the term (and the Wikipedia definition) makes it pretty clear that, as opposed to your restricted definition, an ad hominem is when you resort to attacking the person formulating a statement, rather than the statement itself, usually by attributing them a disparaging general characteristic, with the goal to present that (usually also alleged) negative trait as a motive to refute the statement wholesale.
Now, let's say for a minute that I was contemptuous. A contemptuous person can still assert that 1+1=2 or 1+1=3. Thus, unless you actually go for rebuttal of the point they are making, should you believe that it is incorrect, you are not doing yourself any favour with regards to winning the argument by trying to get the audience agree with the fallacious "This person is contemptuous therefore whatever they state is wrong and should be ignored"
See how that works? Or do I need to break it down further?
Any time you throw in a "arrogant", "sarcastic", "trolling", "childish", and so on (i.e. any time you are attacking the other party's character), as your main/sole argument to "disprove" my statement, you are not doing yourself any favour.
First,it lacks a verb in the first phrase ^^ ("clearly nothing to do" isn't syntaxically valid).
Well, it's kind of weird you would pick on the 3rd item of a list that all display the same syntactic behaviour as all the others. The list is organized as "quote: clarification as to whether it qualifies as an ad-hominem or not". Please ask a English native speaker whether they think that a verb was required where you say it was, coz, while I'm pretty sure I may have been using weird phrasing elsewhere (which again, if that's what you need to bring to try to refute an argument won't carry much weight), this isn't really the place where you would want to pick on syntax.
So you clearly said, several times, that I was unable to interpret things correctly.
Yes. And you added one more when you interpreted my asking for more posts of yours as trolling, which wasn't on my mind at all.
And the reason behind that, which I don't mind to repeat one more time, is that you appear to be insisting to want to put the following untruths in my mouth:
That I don't care about Windows 7 users and want them to upgrade to Windows 10 (i.e. your initial erroneous interpretation of a statement replying to a user post, later deleted, which, clearly should provide some clues that there exist some missing context and that one wants to be careful in jumping to erroneous conclusion), out of "laziness" (your words) and/or "arrogance".
That, even after I indicated that the statement above should not be taken out of context and did not mean at all what you thought it meant (especially given other elements that came prior, which I also explicitly pointed to), you continued to insist that your initial assertion was still perfectly legitimate, and, furthermore, that I probably secretely despise Windows 7 users regardless, with a long winded implausible "intuition" as to why that might be the case (quote: "I suspect it comes from a HTTPS/SSL implementing issue you had at one moment, and wich made you angry about people still being in W7 and forcing you to adapt your soft. But hey, that's just my intuition !")
As long as you are going to posit that I am (secretly) despising Windows 7 users, when there is no actual evidence you can put forward to back that claim up, and that any rebuttal from me is a complete lie, as part of some more obnoxious character traits that you are also trying to sling forward, I'll keep rehashing that, not only you have very wrongly misinterpreted thing, but, considering the length you are now trying to go through in order to try to persuade others that you weren't in the wrong in the first place, you are now desperately trying to save face.
you're again using insinuations, and trying to cover them with deny !
I'm afraid, from the elements I pointed above, which I will further reiterate, it should become clear who is the person who is in denial as well as who is insinuating things.
You have repeatedly have had to resort to denial to try to keep your argumentation going, such as stating that people should not have to look at previous linked issues, that were very explicitly pointed to as duplicate, or be mindful of deleted posts, before they make up their mind as to whether the developer of a software utility doesn't care about users running relatively old (but still officially supported) platforms because they are lazy/arrogant.
And when you realized that it wasn't working too well, you had to resort to pulling a completely unverifiable reason out of thin air (a.k.a. an insinuation), as to why the developer would be angry with users of that platform.
Now that's me who is enjoying this debate ☺
I'm sorry, but when someone has to call on name calling, ad hominem, hypothetical "intuitive" ideas or insinuations of what the other party might have secretly been doing, (alleged) syntax errors and other argumentative fallacies, there's not much of a debate.
But please don't let that refrain you from posting further.
Heraes-git
commented
5 years ago Once again, you're interpreting things wrong. Trolling was never mentioned, and the fact that you interpret this sentence as an accusation of trolling tells a lot.
Yeah, it tells that you constantly use insinuations and as usual, run of them afterward.
At this stage, and this appears to have been the case for some time, you have to fabricate hidden (and unprovable) explanations
No no no, YOU don't answer to what I write. I perfectly explained that you reversed chronology and mixed ad-hominem with other things.
So all these paragraphs from :
or throw character traits,
to
you will continue to insist that only your interpretation should be taken as gospel,
are null and have no value.
If I really wanted to obtain the last word, wouldn't you agree that the much easier thing to do would be to first ban you, and then post one last time?
You have no right to ban anyone, and you're trying to obtain it by forcing others to be perceived as trolls. I also perfectly spotted that in my last comment.
On the other hand, continuously accusing someone of being "arrogant", "lazy", "pretentious" and so on is harassment.
No. It's a critic. And you seem to have a problem to accept it. Moreover, you also provide critics, and use adjectives too.
Yes. Sue me for asserting that people are generally smart and can read what is presented to them... rather than jump to the wrong conclusion.
You didn't, given all what I explained when spotting your constant sophism and reversion ;)
And here we have exactly the kind of reply I was hoping to see from you again. As I stated earlier, your lengthy reply from a few posts prior demonstrates everything one needs to know about your "arguing" process. So there's not much else for me but to just enjoy watching just how far down you are willing to go. I am both genuinely interested and entertained.
So, you're happy to see me spotting the arrogant troll you are ? :D That's perfect, I didn't need more !
Yet I am quoting you extensively...
And ignoring what is said...
Name calling. Again, never a good way to try to demonstrate that your arguing is the soundest.
We have the right to name you and to use adjectives to describe you, especially if we make the effort to prove it. And you have no right to ignore what we say, then to answer "name calling, blablabla that's a good demonstration of...", because we can just ignore that demonstration as you ignore ones of others. So, keep fapping on those "name calling".
Here is is. A perfect example of ad hominem
That can't be an ad-hominem, given that if you're using hints and insinuations and then blaming others to understand it, this childish behavior has to be described and the word "contempt" is one of the word that correspond to that behavior. You won't reverse the situation by saying that if we've said that you used ad-hominem by using contempt against "readers too fool to read correctly", that would mean that we're the ones using ad-hominem.
Plus, I use argumentation to support that word, and all the demonstration covered the sophism and reversion technics you constantly use to cover your trace.
I'm afraid, from the elements I pointed above, which I will further reiterate, it should become clear who is the person who is in denial as well as who is insinuating things.
Blablabla. I'm affraid that people will see, by looking just two comments above, that I gave a definition of ad-hominem and a chronological map of your reversion. You're screwed and those "Im affraid" moment you keep repeating are useless against that. :D
First, let's start with the definition from Wikipedia
No. :D First, let see your speaker definition (me, I'm your speaker), instead of runing of what he perfectly spotted. You constantly ignore what others say and I don't have to enter your game.
you are not doing yourself any favour with regards to winning the argument by trying to get the audience agree with the fallacious _"This person is contemptuous therefore whatever they state is wrong and should be ignored"
Wrong ! I firstly proved that you were doing insinuations and then reversing the chronology to cover your first thoughts, and THEN conclude with the contempt adjective. I never looped into a "he's contemptuous so all he says is wrong".
See how that works? Or do I need to break it down further?
Hahaha, keep going ! :D This is crazy funny. You're gonna pass for a fool in front of every developper coming here. Rufus will be assimilated to a kid who cover himself by inventing things we never said, and trying to make his readers to forget the insinuations he committed.
pbatard
commented
5 years ago Yeah, it tells that you constantly use insinuations and as usual, run of them afterward.
You choose how you want to interpret things.
You are pretending I am saying one thing (your misinterpreted version), and then, when I point that your interpretation is incorrect, with evidence, you simply state that you were correct and I am running off, even though I am still there, demonstrating how your interpretation was, and still is, wrong.
How convenient.
So all these paragraphs from (...) to (...) are null and have no value.
Also exceedingly convenient.
You have no right to ban anyone
Feel free to appeal to GitHub if I do ban you. I'll be more than happy to point to all the name calling I have received from you on this issue, and let them decide whether they think the ban was legitimate.
We have the right to name you and to use adjectives to describe you, especially if we make the effort to prove it. And you have no right to ignore what we say
Prove it? With what? Your insinuation that I am supposed to despise Win7 users because of a fictitious issue you invented to further your narrative? Or that I am arrogant for pointing to your obvious mistakes, be it in interpreting a benign statement, repeatedly using ad hominem and all the other argumentative fallacies you've been trying to throw?
You still haven't provided a single fact that could remotely back up your theory that I despise Windows 7 users, which is the crux of the matter here. All we're seeing here is you stating "I correctly spotted your initial disparaging behaviour against Windows 7 users", with no evidence to back up this central claim of your arguing (since everything else you state depends on it).
On the contrary, the one thing you did do with regards to that assertion of yours, is tell everyone that the context, which can be easily surmised from the prior indication that this is a duplicate issue with a direct easily browsable link to said issue, doesn't count and that one should absolutely be entitled to ignore context before they form their opinion on the meaning of a sentence.
If you want this debate to get somewhere, please try to address that for a change.
Or to put it very explicitly:
What FACTS can you put forward to back up the idea that, even as I pointed to an issue that seems to disprove both your assertions that there is something that should be fixed in Rufus, and that I am unwilling to help Windows 7 users (which, as the original issue will demonstrate I am still actively testing on), I am despising Windows 7 users and will take the high road on them at the first chance I get?
How about you start by not ignoring this? How about enlightening us on the thought process that made you construct your initial reply from the statements of mine you saw before, and how you were absolutely entitled to call me arrogant and lazy then.
That can't be an ad-hominem
Sadly, even if you don't like it, it is. And a prime example at that. You can huff and puff all you want, and pull your hair to try to pretend it isn't really and ad hominem (or, if it is, it's okay because you should be entitled to use ad hominem), but that doesn't change facts.
You have explicitly been inviting people to ignore what I might state on account of a posited character flaw (quote: "nobody has to read you, given your level of contempt").
No matter how you want to present it, it is an of ad hominem.
Now, if you want to go into context with regards to that statement, how it wasn't meant to be an ad hominem, and how people should not misinterpret what you write, I am all ears... 😄
chronological map of your reversion
Yes, as I stated over and over again, you seem to be convinced that I am really really despising Windows 7 users, and then reverted my stance when you, oh-so-correctly, ignored all the evidence that pointed otherwise.
Come on now: You can use the word lying, since telling that I am lying is pretty much what you are stating in everything but actual words.
let see your speaker definition
Wow. I really gotta use that one some day: "It doesn't matter if an established definition contradicts mine, it's my definition that should prevail, even if inaccurate"
You constantly ignore what others say and I don't have to enter your game.
More convenience. No need to disprove an argument with facts when you state that the "game" should not apply to you.
You're gonna pass for a fool in front of every developper coming here. Rufus will be assimilated to a kid who cover himself by inventing things we never said, and trying to make his readers to forget the insinuations he committed
I am more than willing to take that chance.
I'm pretty sure anyone who reads that first statement of mine above will agree that, at the very least, there has to be a different way to interpret my "Nothing to do with Rufus, you need to make sure your version of Windows is up to date when it comes to accessing HTTPS sites." besides a contemptuous "Rufus is really at fault here, but I'm too lazy to do anything about it. Instead, all you Windows 7 idiots should upgrade to Windows 10 already...".
Finally, since this was an addon of yours I obviously couldn't address, let's talk about about the full chronological map, rather than your version that also conveniently brushes over very important facts:
You version of the SSL library is too old issue.So, just to bring the point home, I did not "reverse (the) chronology" (I could quip about that, but that would only distract from the point) because there really is nothing in my initial or further statements that support your idea that I am contemptuous of Windows 7 users, which is further evidenced by the fact that you had to completely fabricate a hypothetical scenario of how I may have run into a hidden issue, to further this idea of yours.
Everything you can see written is face value. When I tell someone "make sure your version of Windows is up to date when it comes to accessing HTTPS sites", there's no hidden meaning to it besides what is written, as can be easily demonstrated from the issue being linked to, and your continuous insistence that you spotted contempt for Windows 7 users in a benign statement (or subsequent ones) is exceedingly disingenuous at best. And for the record, I am berating users who don't properly follow the checklist to search for issues equally. This is not just reserved for Windows 7 users...
Thus, if your sole argument devolves into a "you are lying about that first statement and I rightfully picked on your contemptuous behaviour for the whole world to see", as appears to be the case considering the points you are trying to make, I will continue to expect proper evidence to back up your claim, and not your usual "insinuation", "hints", "reverse chronology" and whatnot.
Especially, I'd like you to explain, without resorting to a hypothetical scenario, how the original issue I linked to and the statement I made right after, could logically hide the contempt for Windows 7 users that you are still desperately trying to allude I manifested then, as well as how the way I explained the statement should actually be construed is obviously wrong (I mean, if only your interpretation of it is meant to stand, then it should be rather easy to demonstrate how mine is flawed). If I reversed chronology, as you allege, then it should be all too easy to do so, since you can drop anything that comes after that statement.
Care to give it a go? Or are you still going to find some convenient excuse not to go there?
Heraes-git
commented
5 years ago You choose how you want to interpret things.
No, as I proved it, you ignore what people say, in order to keep saying the same thing. I don't interpret, I prove : as when you used hints, and I demonstrated that you later blamed us for reading what you said.
Also exceedingly convenient.
As you, ignoring others. You don't have more rights than us.
Prove it? With what? Your insinuation that I am supposed to despise Win7 users because of a fictitious issue you invented to further your narrative?
My insinuations ? No, yours. As I proved it, yeah, by typing things your simply ignore.
You still haven't provided a single fact that could remotely back up your theory that I despise Windows 7 users,
Yes I dit, by quoting you. There's even a series of quoting, a few scrolls up, where people can clearly see that you accused me to "not be able to read and understand most of what is written", and at the same time, saying that you never said it to me. xD You're screwed a long time ago.
On the contrary, the one thing you did do with regards to that assertion of yours, is tell everyone that the context, which can be easily surmised from the prior indication that this...
No, seriously : did you see the lenght of that phrase guys ?? ^^ Hahaha, this is syntaxically killing eyes.
Or to put it very explicitly:
What FACTS can you put forward to back up the idea that,...
xD Hahahaha.
even as I pointed to an issue that seems to disprove both your assertions that there is something that should be fixed in Rufus
You didn't disprove anything I said. See ? That's short, hmm ? That's how you proceed, now enjoy it !
Sadly, even if you don't like it, it is. You have explicitly been inviting people to ignore what I might state No matter how you want to present it, it is an of ad hominem.
^^ Where are the proofs ? You think you can just repeat what I say to you, about you ignoring my statements and my proofs ?
Yes, as I stated over and over again,
Yeah, and you don't seem able to stop ! xD
Wow. I really gotta use that one some day: "It doesn't matter if an established definition contradicts mine, it's my definition that should prevail, even if inaccurate"
No, it was an invitation NOT TO IGNORE what I said and NOT TO STEAL THE RIGHT to define things, especially for then backuping yourself with Wikipedia (while I was using my sole brain). You simply ignored my definition, and skipped the discussion to YOUR definition, and I recalled you that you had NO RIGHT to monopolize the attention, by remembering you that I provided a definition that you ignored. But you ignored that, too. And now, you try to reverse the situation to make me pass for a guy who would make his explanation to preval on others ! xD
You're a constant joke, accusing others to do what you do yourself. You ignore people, steal the attention, want to be read when you skipped what people has written, and then reverse the situation by using the phrase we make to remember you that. You have a real problem of chronology and bad-faith.
- You misinterpret a short statement that makes no mention whatsoever about upgrading Windows
No. As I proved it sevral time, you used hints, anbiguous terms, stated clear thoughts about W7 being too old and not maintained in 2020, and then blame us for understanding what you mean, and try to cover your trace.
So, just to bring the point home, I did not "reverse (the) chronology" (I could quip about that, but that would only distract from the point)
OH YEAH you could, hahahaha. :D
Care to give it a go? Or are you still going to find some convenient excuse not to go there?
Giv it a go for what ?
pbatard
commented
5 years ago Whereby we find the other party completely skirting a very direct question about the what fact they can bring forward to corroborate the initial assertion they made...
I demonstrated that you later blamed us for reading what you said.
How I like your constant use of "us" and "we", as an artifice to indicate that everybody "should" be on your side in this matter. Sadly, you it is just that, an artifice. And I don't think I blamed you (unless blaming means something different for your). I stated that you completely misinterpreted multiple statements of mine (every single one you quoted in your initial reply), and then ran with this complete misinterpretation.
you accused me to "not be able to read and understand most of what is written", and at the same time, saying that you never said it to me. xD You're screwed a long time ago.
Yet, strangely, you don't appear to want to quote that thing I am supposed to have said.
I will surmise that this is your attempted rebuttal at my indication of how this:
I'm sorry but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on platforms (Windows 7) that is going to reach End of Life soon (Jan 2020) and that simply happen not to be able to download files because important system updates, such as the ability to access modern SSL sites were not applied. Spending time fixing Windows 7 obsolete behaviours is just not a good use of anybody's development time.
is meant to be read, which, I as already tried to explain to you but which you don't appear to want to hear, when not isolated from the context (since it is a direct reply to "You (could) take actions from there (like alerting the user or using an alternative download method)", which I quoted) does not even remotely mean what you insinuate it means.
So let me go over this logically, first by indicating, if needed, that at this stage of the discussion (as I also indicate in the post you quoted from) because the second poster didn't provide enough data, I have to assume that they are running into the same SSL issue as OP and are using Windows 7:
As far as I am concerned, and I will assert, as far as others who are able to read a statement in context, this is the very logical thing to state on account that:
So, that's all what that quote meant. If you want to interpret it as being a disparaging comment about Windows 7 users, or even me stating that "Windows 7 is obsolete, move on already", it's of course your choice. But you need to realise, if you still can, that if you consider the context, your interpretation that this is a disparaging comment about Windows 7 (or its users) is not even remotely close to was a non biased person is likely to read from it, especially in context.
Ergo, with this as well as the elements I pointed out in my last reply, I believe I have provided enough evidence to demonstrate that NONE of the points you quoted from me, in your initial reply, when read in context, can even remotely be interpreted in the way you appear to have read them. If you read it carefully, none of what you are trying to assert is there, and therefore none of what you insinuate (since you seem to like that word) about my behaviour does stand the test of scrutiny.
Thus, as I have been continuously pointing out, your whole premise is utterly flawed. Yet, you are:
Hahaha, this is syntaxically killing eyes.
Typical argument of a person who cannot dispute the central point being put forward.
As I proved it sevral time, you used hints, anbiguous terms, stated clear thoughts about W7 being too old and not maintained in 2020, and then blame us for understanding what you mean, and try to cover your trace.
Then please read the above. There's nothing remotely ambiguous when you read the statement(s) in context.
And once again, you are committing the huge mistake of BIAS by:
You are putting words that I have never said, as well a hidden meanings, in my mouth to try to validate a point that you are desperately trying to bring forward, even as it has become entirely unsustainable by now, just so that you don't have to admit that you were dead wrong in your interpretation of what you quoted me saying in your first reply.
Well, considering that we are still there, with you blatantly refusing to admit your mistake of interpretation, and I believe I have done more than enough ground work in these last two posts to logically deconstruct all the points you have been trying to make in your initial post, there's really nothing more for me to add at this stage.
If that still leaves you wanting, you can always re-read, calmly, what I wrote, and, perhaps, in due time, you'll come to the conclusion that the bias you assumed a developer would have, with regards to users of older platforms, was simply a figment of your imagination, and that you should be exceedingly careful not to run with something like that, but instead always strive to read statements in context, next time you want to send disparaging comments towards someone.
Now, since I could do without yet another "No, it's you who are wrong! And it's you who are not reading what I say!" I will now also lock this thread. And I will also warn you that, if you feel like pushing this matter further (by trying to add yet another retort like "You're a constant joke" in another issue for instance), I will also have no problem banning you as user.
Checklist
<FULL LOG>below.Rufus version: x.y.z- I have NOT removed any part of it.Additionally (if applicable):
(✓)button to compute the MD5, SHA1 and SHA256 checksums, which are therefore present in the log I copied. I confirmed, by performing an internet search, that these values match the ones from the official image.Issue description
Here im leave the log of the program: Extended version was not found, trying main version... Downloading https://rufus.ie/files/syslinux-6.04/ldlinux.sys Unable to send request: This system's SSL library is too old to be able to access this website. Could not download the file - cancelling
Log