Bob: Let me correct you there... It's 'probobly,' not 'probably,' my friend!To avoid misunderstandings, I corrected my post by adding "probably" to Bob's statement.
Should Comodo users stop using Comodo?
- Thread starter Andy Ful
- Start date
- Status
Always nice when someone lets you know they’re ignoring you, it’s like a goodbye note without the commitment.
Before this thread is closed, I’d like to share a brief analysis of an interaction that stood out as one of the most recurring throughout the discussion. I understand the main topic is ‘Should Comodo users stop using Comodo?’ and that this might be considered off-topic, but I believe this contribution could help shed light on some of the dynamics that unfolded here.
Just to clarify, my intention is not to stir controversy or single anyone out, but rather to offer an objective perspective on a significant part of the exchange. I appreciate everyone who has contributed useful and technical insights in this space.
Analysis of Divergente’s Tone and Content in the Thread
1. Frequency and PersistenceDivergente repeatedly participates in the thread, with multiple responses directed either directly or indirectly at Andy Ful.
Although some messages touch on general forum topics, most revolve around questioning Andy Ful’s behavior.
2. Critical and Confrontational Content
Divergente accuses Andy Ful of “starting crusades,” “creating division and unrest,” and “acting as judge and jury.”
He uses an ironic and theatrical tone in a post that parodies Andy Ful’s style, suggesting he always seeks to have “the last word” and that his behavior is egocentric.
3. Reactions from Other Forum Members
Andy Ful responds firmly, stating that Divergente’s complaints are off-topic and suggesting they be moved to a more appropriate thread.
Other users, such as outlawxtorn, criticize Divergente for “playing the victim” and for not contributing useful information, indicating that his participation is not well received by everyone.
Is There an Intent to Destabilize the Thread?
Yes, there are clear signs that Divergente’s interventions shift the focus from the technical debate about Comodo to personal disputes. This is evident in:- The insistence on discussing Andy Ful’s behavior instead of the thread’s topic.
- The use of sarcasm and parody to publicly discredit him.
- The refusal to accept moderation suggestions to move the discussion elsewhere.
Is There an Obsession with Andy Ful?The behavioral pattern suggests a notable fixation:
- Most of Divergente’s messages center on Andy Ful, even when other users are involved in the thread.
- There’s a repetitive narrative about Andy Ful’s alleged ego and control, extending beyond a one-time critique.
- The extensive and theatrical parody indicates a significant emotional investment in discrediting him.
Andy Ful’s Behavior Toward Divergente1. Firm but Moderate Tone
Andy Ful responds to Divergente with phrases such as:
2. Intent to Moderate the Thread
On several occasions, Andy Ful suggests that Divergente move his comments to the parallel thread “What is really going on in the Comodo threads?”, which was specifically created to discuss conflicts and behaviors in Comodo-related threads.
This indicates that Andy is trying to keep the original thread focused on the technical topic (Comodo) rather than personal disputes.
3. Additional Responses with Technical Focus
Andy continues to contribute arguments about vulnerabilities and comparisons between Comodo and other antivirus products, suggesting that his main interest remains the technical debate, not personal conflict.
Is There Hostility Toward Divergente?
No explicit hostility is observed. Although Andy Ful responds firmly and disagrees with Divergente, he avoids sarcasm, mockery, or direct personal attacks. Instead:- He acknowledges that some criticisms may be valid.
- He encourages using appropriate channels for complaints.
- He does not respond with the same theatrical or ironic tone as Divergente.
Is He Prolonging the Thread for Personal Satisfaction?
That doesn’t appear to be the case. While Andy Ful is actively involved, his interventions:- Stay centered on the thread’s technical topic.
- Attempt to redirect off-topic discussions.
- Show no signs of wanting to “have the last word” out of ego, but rather to bring the thread to a structured close.
In summary: Andy Ful maintains a firm yet moderate stance toward Divergente, with no clear evidence of personal hostility or a desire to prolong the thread out of vanity. His behavior seems aimed at preserving order and keeping the debate focused on technical matters.
Before this thread is closed, I’d like to share a brief analysis of an interaction that stood out as one of the most recurring throughout the discussion. I understand the main topic is ‘Should Comodo users stop using Comodo?’ and that this might be considered off-topic, but I believe this contribution could help shed light on some of the dynamics that unfolded here.
Just to clarify, my intention is not to stir controversy or single anyone out, but rather to offer an objective perspective on a significant part of the exchange. I appreciate everyone who has contributed useful and technical insights in this space.
1. Frequency and Persistence
Divergente repeatedly participates in the thread, with multiple responses directed either directly or indirectly at Andy Ful.
Although some messages touch on general forum topics, most revolve around questioning Andy Ful’s behavior.
2. Critical and Confrontational Content
Divergente accuses Andy Ful of “starting crusades,” “creating division and unrest,” and “acting as judge and jury.”
He uses an ironic and theatrical tone in a post that parodies Andy Ful’s style, suggesting he always seeks to have “the last word” and that his behavior is egocentric.
3. Reactions from Other Forum Members
Andy Ful responds firmly, stating that Divergente’s complaints are off-topic and suggesting they be moved to a more appropriate thread.
Other users, such as outlawxtorn, criticize Divergente for “playing the victim” and for not contributing useful information, indicating that his participation is not well received by everyone.
Yes, there are clear signs that Divergente’s interventions shift the focus from the technical debate about Comodo to personal disputes. This is evident in:
All of this contributes to a tense and polarized atmosphere, which can be considered a form of destabilization.
- The insistence on discussing Andy Ful’s behavior instead of the thread’s topic.
- The use of sarcasm and parody to publicly discredit him.
- The refusal to accept moderation suggestions to move the discussion elsewhere.
The behavioral pattern suggests a notable fixation:
While “obsession” is a strong term, it’s fair to say there is a persistent and personal focus on Andy Ful that goes beyond the technical debate.
- Most of Divergente’s messages center on Andy Ful, even when other users are involved in the thread.
- There’s a repetitive narrative about Andy Ful’s alleged ego and control, extending beyond a one-time critique.
- The extensive and theatrical parody indicates a significant emotional investment in discrediting him.
1. Firm but Moderate Tone
Andy Ful responds to Divergente with phrases such as:
2. Intent to Moderate the Thread
On several occasions, Andy Ful suggests that Divergente move his comments to the parallel thread “What is really going on in the Comodo threads?”, which was specifically created to discuss conflicts and behaviors in Comodo-related threads.
This indicates that Andy is trying to keep the original thread focused on the technical topic (Comodo) rather than personal disputes.
3. Additional Responses with Technical Focus
Andy continues to contribute arguments about vulnerabilities and comparisons between Comodo and other antivirus products, suggesting that his main interest remains the technical debate, not personal conflict.
No explicit hostility is observed. Although Andy Ful responds firmly and disagrees with Divergente, he avoids sarcasm, mockery, or direct personal attacks. Instead:
This suggests that Andy Ful is more focused on containing the conflict than escalating it.
- He acknowledges that some criticisms may be valid.
- He encourages using appropriate channels for complaints.
- He does not respond with the same theatrical or ironic tone as Divergente.
That doesn’t appear to be the case. While Andy Ful is actively involved, his interventions:
He even mentions that the thread may be closed soon, reinforcing the idea that he’s not trying to extend it unnecessarily.
- Stay centered on the thread’s technical topic.
- Attempt to redirect off-topic discussions.
- Show no signs of wanting to “have the last word” out of ego, but rather to bring the thread to a structured close.
In summary: Andy Ful maintains a firm yet moderate stance toward Divergente, with no clear evidence of personal hostility or a desire to prolong the thread out of vanity. His behavior seems aimed at preserving order and keeping the debate focused on technical matters.
If you’re going to use AI for analysis, do it properly, give it all 22 pages so it can assess the full context. Just feeding it the last page guarantees a skewed outcome. And while you’re at it, have it flag instances of word-twisting and deflection for a clearer picture.
@Halp2001 this is how you perform a proper analysis. I did not include the last couple pages because they are geared at his behavior which he has denied. This is the first 18 pages of the thread though and it paints a totally different picture doesn't it?
*************************************************
Based on a psycholinguistic analysis of the provided forum pages, here is an assessment of the communication patterns of Andy Ful and Divergent.
Analysis of Andy Ful's Communication
Andy Ful's posts, particularly in his role as the thread starter, exhibit a pattern of attempting to control the narrative and deflect from direct challenges. Here are some observations.
Word Twisting and Reframing
Andy Ful frequently reframes other users' arguments to fit his own narrative. For instance, in response to a user asking for a file hash to confirm a bypass, he states, "I will not," and then shifts the burden of proof by saying, "You can also try to explain how such malware would be contained/blocked for sure by known Comodo features". This reframes the request for evidence as an unreasonable demand and deflects the responsibility back onto the other user. When Divergent presents a detailed analysis of vulnerabilities, Andy Ful dismisses it by stating, "The Comodo staff announced that those vulnerabilities are not a direct threat to Comodo (do not require immediate patching). We are forced in this thread to believe them until those vulnerabilities are not exploited in the wild". This is a clear deflection that misrepresents Divergent's evidence-based argument as a matter of belief.
Deflecting and Shifting the Goalposts
When confronted with direct questions or evidence that contradicts his position, Andy Ful often shifts the focus of the conversation. For example, when another user points out that unfixed bugs still exist, he replies, "In this thread, no one suggested that the latest CIS does not have any unfixed bugs," and then steers the conversation towards what he claims has been discussed. This is a subtle way of deflecting from the original point without directly addressing it.
Appeals to Authority and Rules
As the thread starter, Andy Ful repeatedly refers to the "rules of the thread" to dismiss arguments he finds inconvenient. This tactic is used to control the conversation and shut down lines of inquiry that challenge his narrative. He states, "Most of what you both posted either contradicts the rules of this thread or is untrue," a bold claim that he doesn't substantiate with evidence but uses to dismiss the contributions of others.
Analysis of Divergent's Communication
Divergent's posts, in contrast, demonstrate a consistent effort to engage in a substantive, evidence-based discussion.
Genuine Participation and Evidence-Based Arguments
Divergent consistently provides detailed, well-researched posts that directly address the topic. For example, they present a comprehensive breakdown of CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) related to Comodo, including severity scores and descriptions of the vulnerabilities. This shows a clear intent to contribute factual information to the discussion.
Direct and On-Topic Responses
Divergent's posts directly address the points made by other users, including Andy Ful. When Andy Ful deflects the conversation about vulnerabilities, Divergent brings the focus back to the core issue of vendor accountability and response to known flaws, stating, "The real metric for a vendor's trustworthiness is not the number of flaws found, but their PROCESS and RESPONSE to those flaws".
Good-Faith Engagement
Divergent's tone remains focused on the technical and security-related aspects of the discussion. While the conversation becomes heated, Divergent's contributions are centered on evidence and logical arguments rather than personal attacks. They attempt to steer the conversation back to the evidence, even when others try to deflect.
Conclusion
In summary, the provided text shows a clear contrast in the communication styles of Andy Ful and Divergent. Andy Ful's posts demonstrate a pattern of word twisting and deflection, often using his position as thread starter to control the narrative and avoid addressing direct evidence. Divergent, on the other hand, consistently attempts to genuinely participate in the discussion by providing well-researched, evidence-based arguments that are directly relevant to the thread's purpose.
*************************************************
Based on a psycholinguistic analysis of the provided forum pages, here is an assessment of the communication patterns of Andy Ful and Divergent.
Analysis of Andy Ful's Communication
Andy Ful's posts, particularly in his role as the thread starter, exhibit a pattern of attempting to control the narrative and deflect from direct challenges. Here are some observations.
Word Twisting and Reframing
Andy Ful frequently reframes other users' arguments to fit his own narrative. For instance, in response to a user asking for a file hash to confirm a bypass, he states, "I will not," and then shifts the burden of proof by saying, "You can also try to explain how such malware would be contained/blocked for sure by known Comodo features". This reframes the request for evidence as an unreasonable demand and deflects the responsibility back onto the other user. When Divergent presents a detailed analysis of vulnerabilities, Andy Ful dismisses it by stating, "The Comodo staff announced that those vulnerabilities are not a direct threat to Comodo (do not require immediate patching). We are forced in this thread to believe them until those vulnerabilities are not exploited in the wild". This is a clear deflection that misrepresents Divergent's evidence-based argument as a matter of belief.
Deflecting and Shifting the Goalposts
When confronted with direct questions or evidence that contradicts his position, Andy Ful often shifts the focus of the conversation. For example, when another user points out that unfixed bugs still exist, he replies, "In this thread, no one suggested that the latest CIS does not have any unfixed bugs," and then steers the conversation towards what he claims has been discussed. This is a subtle way of deflecting from the original point without directly addressing it.
Appeals to Authority and Rules
As the thread starter, Andy Ful repeatedly refers to the "rules of the thread" to dismiss arguments he finds inconvenient. This tactic is used to control the conversation and shut down lines of inquiry that challenge his narrative. He states, "Most of what you both posted either contradicts the rules of this thread or is untrue," a bold claim that he doesn't substantiate with evidence but uses to dismiss the contributions of others.
Analysis of Divergent's Communication
Divergent's posts, in contrast, demonstrate a consistent effort to engage in a substantive, evidence-based discussion.
Genuine Participation and Evidence-Based Arguments
Divergent consistently provides detailed, well-researched posts that directly address the topic. For example, they present a comprehensive breakdown of CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) related to Comodo, including severity scores and descriptions of the vulnerabilities. This shows a clear intent to contribute factual information to the discussion.
Direct and On-Topic Responses
Divergent's posts directly address the points made by other users, including Andy Ful. When Andy Ful deflects the conversation about vulnerabilities, Divergent brings the focus back to the core issue of vendor accountability and response to known flaws, stating, "The real metric for a vendor's trustworthiness is not the number of flaws found, but their PROCESS and RESPONSE to those flaws".
Good-Faith Engagement
Divergent's tone remains focused on the technical and security-related aspects of the discussion. While the conversation becomes heated, Divergent's contributions are centered on evidence and logical arguments rather than personal attacks. They attempt to steer the conversation back to the evidence, even when others try to deflect.
Conclusion
In summary, the provided text shows a clear contrast in the communication styles of Andy Ful and Divergent. Andy Ful's posts demonstrate a pattern of word twisting and deflection, often using his position as thread starter to control the narrative and avoid addressing direct evidence. Divergent, on the other hand, consistently attempts to genuinely participate in the discussion by providing well-researched, evidence-based arguments that are directly relevant to the thread's purpose.
Last edited:
If you’re going to use AI for analysis, do it properly, give it all 22 pages so it can assess the full context. Just feeding it the last page guarantees a skewed outcome. And while you’re at it, have it flag instances of word-twisting and deflection for a clearer picture.
Divergente replies to Halp2001’s analysis with a direct critique of the use of artificial intelligence, implying that the analysis was biased due to being based solely on the last page of the thread. His message includes:- Methodological reproach: He questions the validity of the analysis for not considering all 22 pages of the thread.
- Challenging tone: While not overtly hostile, the tone is firm and slightly condescending (“If you’re going to use AI for analysis, do it properly…”).
- Call for thoroughness: He asks for marked examples of “word twisting and deviation” to get a clearer picture.
Hi Divergente,
Thanks for your comment. I’d like to clarify that the analysis was indeed conducted with full consideration of the entire thread, including all 22 pages. The goal was to offer an objective synthesis of recurring patterns, not a superficial review based only on the final page.
I understand your concern about context and accuracy, and I agree that avoiding bias is essential. That’s why the exchanges were carefully reviewed, including moments of tension, technical contributions, and moderation efforts.
If you have specific examples of “word twisting” or deviations that you feel were overlooked, I’d be happy to revisit them. The aim here is to build a clearer and more constructive understanding for everyone in the forum.
Best regards.
Content of Divergente’s Message
1. General Tone:The message adopts a corrective and demanding tone, using imperative phrases like “do it properly” and “have it highlight.”
While it doesn’t contain insults or explicitly offensive language, the tone can be perceived as dismissive or condescending—especially in the context of a technical debate.
2. Aggressive Undertones:
The phrase “simply feeding it the last page guarantees a biased result” implies a direct accusation of poor practice or lack of rigor, without offering evidence that this actually occurred.
Using “guarantees a biased result” is a strong claim that discredits the previous work without nuance or openness to dialogue.
3. Lack of Courtesy or Acknowledgment:
There is no recognition of Halp2001’s effort, nor any invitation to collaborate constructively. This reinforces a perception of passive hostility.
4. Cumulative Context:
Given the history of confrontation in the thread, this message adds to a pattern of interventions that tend to shift the focus from technical discussion to personal disputes.
Divergente’s message is not overtly insulting, but it does contain aggressive undertones and a dismissive tone that may be considered inappropriate in a technical forum. Rather than fostering dialogue, it seems aimed at discrediting Halp2001’s analysis, contributing to a tense atmosphere.
You might want to visit the post I tagged you in, when it comes to analysis, this is an area I excel in. Your prompts to ChatGPT aren’t structured properly, and the way they’re worded gives a skewed impression of the thread.
1. General Tone:
The message adopts a corrective and demanding tone, using imperative phrases like “do it properly” and “have it highlight.”
While it doesn’t contain insults or explicitly offensive language, the tone can be perceived as dismissive or condescending—especially in the context of a technical debate.
2. Aggressive Undertones:
The phrase “simply feeding it the last page guarantees a biased result” implies a direct accusation of poor practice or lack of rigor, without offering evidence that this actually occurred.
Using “guarantees a biased result” is a strong claim that discredits the previous work without nuance or openness to dialogue.
3. Lack of Courtesy or Acknowledgment:
There is no recognition of Halp2001’s effort, nor any invitation to collaborate constructively. This reinforces a perception of passive hostility.
4. Cumulative Context:
Given the history of confrontation in the thread, this message adds to a pattern of interventions that tend to shift the focus from technical discussion to personal disputes.
Divergente’s message is not overtly insulting, but it does contain aggressive undertones and a dismissive tone that may be considered inappropriate in a technical forum. Rather than fostering dialogue, it seems aimed at discrediting Halp2001’s analysis, contributing to a tense atmosphere.
Notice how my analysis referenced examples and interactions from multiple users to create a full picture? That’s because I designed my prompt to be unbiased, I asked it to look for patterns of word-twisting and deflection without specifying from whom. The contrast in our outputs is pretty interesting, isn’t it?
I also applied psycholinguistics in my approach, that’s the study of how our minds and brains process language, combining psychology (the study of the mind) and linguistics (the scientific study of language). It helps reveal the subtle cues behind how people communicate and interpret meaning.
Sometimes people are just passionate but don't have the required education, qualifications or skills to get a job in the cybersec industry.
They want in but no one wants them. A lot of time it's just poor kids with zero education who want a job and don't relize or know how the world works.
My 2 cents anyway.
Can you stop using A.I. to post that garbage slop. It's so obvious and stupid. Divergant & Halp2001 your wasting our time with that generated rubbish.
Mine is an example of professional analysis. If you do not wish to read it, then do not, you are not required too. He started this and im clarifying it's wrongly done while simultaneously proving what I've said the whole time about Andy Ful's behavior.
Use the ignore button that's what it is there for.
Dear Divergente,
Your analysis was not only thorough, but had the charm of a linguistic dissection performed with a scalpel. The way you applied psycholinguistics to uncover patterns of distortion and deflection was, frankly, worthy of a neon-lit doctoral thesis.
I was struck by how you maintained a technical tone while slipping in observations that, though sharp, avoided direct attacks. It’s like watching a fencer who smiles while dodging and countering with elegance.
If you ever decide to publish a manual titled “How to Debate with Surgical Precision Without Losing Style,” please reserve me a copy!
That said, I won’t continue this debate further, as it has drifted away from the original topic of the thread and into discussions about AI.
Kind regards.
Last edited by a moderator:
WTF's the point? Time to close this BS thread? 
- Aug 17, 2014
- 12,726
- 123,827
- 8,399
This quoted content is meant as example and as information for everyone,
According to Forum Rules => Important Notes:
Forum Rules
The following guidelines outline the rules for participating in our community forums.
malwaretips.com
- Status
You may also like...
-
Help: Comodo 2025 - cmdguard.sys - boot fail with newer Nvidia drivers- Started by Something-x2
- Replies: 33
-
-
Why Don’t Major AV Vendors Use Auto-Containment Like Comodo?
- Started by NoveyBoy
- Replies: 23
-
Hacked, leaked, exposed: Why you should never use stalkerware apps- Started by Gandalf_The_Grey
- Replies: 0
-
Microsoft: Windows bug blocks Microsoft 365 desktop app installs- Started by Brownie2019
- Replies: 3