Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 72227" data-source="post: 805169">We&#039;re just going to have to agree to disagree than. I am not going to get into a long drawn out debate on the matter.No one is censoring anyone, you seem to be the only one bringing this up. Everyone just has a difference of opinions. That&#039;s what it is, nothing more. Tests do give us data, yes, but they aren&#039;t the end all be all. I&#039;m sorry but as I&#039;ve already said, the people that accuse others of being emotional and fanyboys are just has bad as the ones they are complaining about. It takes two to tango. The reason why Wilder&#039;s banned it wasn&#039;t because of &quot;fanboys&quot; it was because they got to heated, as no one would respect one another. Point is, you only see your point of view as being correct and if anyone else challenges it, they are wrong. Sorry buddy, but that&#039;s not how having a fruitful conversation works.In fact as I&#039;ve mentioned in previous posts, I can find examples of certain products doing very well, however these same people will quickly discredit the test because it&#039;s not possible for something like WD to score well. If you want facts, then you have to respect all tests, not just the ones that match your point of view. And to be frankly honest with you, having a 100% detection rate, or passing a test gaurentee&#039;s nothing. All it means it is passed that test sample. If someone in the real world got infected with a new piece of malware what wasn&#039;t detected and either got their info stolen, or their files encrypted with no backups, I don&#039;t think they will care what the test results were. Point is, they got infected, but according to the &quot;facts&quot; it should have protected the user based on a test right?Again, we will just have to agree to disagree. At the end of the day, no one is censoring anybody and it&#039;s possible to have thoughtful conversations without anyone trying to &quot;win&quot; the discussion. The points that [USER=32260]@Andy Ful[/USER] brought up are valid and help have a thoughtful conversation. I don&#039;t think anywhere in his post he was disagreeing with the test, but is just pointing out the fact that if one wanted to they can take advantage of other settings to make them more secure. I can tell you outright he isn&#039;t a fanboy, but he is very knowledgeable and knows his stuff. It doesn&#039;t make his point less valid because he is offering information and knowledge on the matter and looking at the bigger picture.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 72227, post: 805169"] We're just going to have to agree to disagree than. I am not going to get into a long drawn out debate on the matter. No one is censoring anyone, you seem to be the only one bringing this up. Everyone just has a difference of opinions. That's what it is, nothing more. Tests do give us data, yes, but they aren't the end all be all. I'm sorry but as I've already said, the people that accuse others of being emotional and fanyboys are just has bad as the ones they are complaining about. It takes two to tango. The reason why Wilder's banned it wasn't because of "fanboys" it was because they got to heated, as no one would respect one another. Point is, you only see your point of view as being correct and if anyone else challenges it, they are wrong. Sorry buddy, but that's not how having a fruitful conversation works. In fact as I've mentioned in previous posts, I can find examples of certain products doing very well, however these same people will quickly discredit the test because it's not possible for something like WD to score well. If you want facts, then you have to respect all tests, not just the ones that match your point of view. And to be frankly honest with you, having a 100% detection rate, or passing a test gaurentee's nothing. All it means it is passed that test sample. If someone in the real world got infected with a new piece of malware what wasn't detected and either got their info stolen, or their files encrypted with no backups, I don't think they will care what the test results were. Point is, they got infected, but according to the "facts" it should have protected the user based on a test right? Again, we will just have to agree to disagree. At the end of the day, no one is censoring anybody and it's possible to have thoughtful conversations without anyone trying to "win" the discussion. The points that [USER=32260]@Andy Ful[/USER] brought up are valid and help have a thoughtful conversation. I don't think anywhere in his post he was disagreeing with the test, but is just pointing out the fact that if one wanted to they can take advantage of other settings to make them more secure. I can tell you outright he isn't a fanboy, but he is very knowledgeable and knows his stuff. It doesn't make his point less valid because he is offering information and knowledge on the matter and looking at the bigger picture. [/QUOTE]

Verification