I’ve just spent quite a while looking for this. But, of course, I’m looking for something that isn’t actually there… so, it’s proving tricky. Obviously, I may not know… however, can you give me better directions in order that I can take a look. Thanks.
I found it quite disturbing to see the email replication beeing modified. As if there never had been this post link 3. Was something else modfied before? Thats one of the questions that this rises for me.
The more, as there are “beginning of email” and “end of email” notifications. This leads the reader to the conclusion, this is the email at all.
What? I posted the proof! You’re own Valid list post is completely bent towards siding with AV-C. Even in your own mind (apparent by your replies) your second point (Valid is that many questions are unanswered) doesn’t take into account that it is AV-C who haven’t answered any questions. Your just thinking of your own, and other peoples, questions posted here towards Comodo. If that is not a clear demonstration that you are siding (you do know what “siding” means right?) with AV-C, then I don’t know what else could be. And you have the audacity to call me a liar?
You, Sir, are a total waste of photons. Troll.
I’ve already looked at this page, I really can’t see what you’re looking at… it’s a large bunch of cited, and re-cited, emails… it’s a mess. Please take an screen shot & point it out to me. Thanks.
Just open the page, scroll in the FIRST email until you find in blue:
Post 1
…
Post 2
…
(And there has been a Post 3, which lead to an erased page. Now this Post 3 link is completely removed)
Here a quoting of the passage:
We are waiting for a public rectification till Monday or deleting the respective posts:
Post1
it simply not true that we do not test for protection. Also it is technically wrong what Melih
wrote He is blaming himself. And as we see users are recognizing that and writing this to us.
Post2
Re: Comodo AV Database update page
« Reply #1442 on: November 14, 2011, 01:36:07 PM »
Here is the Post 3 link missing
Quote from: Tech on November 13, 2011, 08:03:43 PM
Here’s what I have… exactly… and in this version the Post 1 and Post 2 tags hadn’t replaced the actual forum URLs in the emails at this point.
.. snip ([url=https://forums.comodo.com/melihs-corner-ceo-talkdiscussionsblog/comodo-agrees-to-pay-50000-to-avcomparativesorg-t79151.0.html;msg567998#msg567998]see below[/url]). ..It seems that someone (AV-C possibly) really mashed up the URLs and the citations of one of those URLs.. the same URL was pasted 3 times and then it looks like a drag 'n' drop of a GIF image in the middle of that (probably from grabbing a URL off the forums page and taking a GIF with it). So, it looks like someone just made the original readable to me. Not that disturbing really.
PS Oh… LOL, and looking at the original topic. Somebody cut the following beautiful post out of the dialogue (badly).
I dont understand fully what you think you found 
I can tell you:
Post 1 leads to a page,
Post 2 leads to a page
Post 3 lead to an “empty page” of (if i remember right) Melihs blog.
So this can not be “messing links or double posting”. All 3 lead to different locations. So they were 3 different urls. And one is gone.
(The quotation of Tech was part of the email. It has nothing to do with the missing Post 3 link. It should just point to the position where the link isnt anymore. So you can easily find it.)
Btw, even if someone messed while writing an email, modifying is modifying if someone else modifies the original without any marking.
Sorry, I didn’t cut it high enough… try this.
We are waiting for a public rectification till Monday or deleting the respective posts: https://forums.comodo.com/other-security-products/retrospective-test-november-2011-t78699.0.html;msg563552#msg563552 it simply not true that we do not test for protection. Also it is technically wrong what Melih wrote He is blaming himself. And as we see users are recognizing that and writing this to us. https://forums.comodo.com/news-announcements-feedback-cis/comodo-av-database-update-page-t34216.0.html;msg561775#msg561775 [cid:image001.gif@01CCAA8D.35669E10] Re: Comodo AV Database update page « Reply #1442 on: November 14, 2011, 01:36:07 PM » ________________________________ Quote from: Tech on November 13, 2011, 08:03:43 PM But, do they? Before the testing or after (to publish)? Are the results influenced by this? How could we know? You are asking the wrong people.
Well, you couldn’t put what I just posted on a blog. It’s a real mess… unless, of course, you wanted to show that the sender seemed to have completely lost it. But, as long as you have the original (in all it’s glory) then it doesn’t really matter.
Your clear text example shows what i try to explain. Until the quotation of Tech begins, there are only two links left!
If you dont understand what is disturbing, i describe what i saw:
On day one, I read the email reproduction. I followed the first TWO POST links (which are still in your clear text), they showed what the complain was about. Then i wanted to read POST 3. I was send to an “emptied” page of (rather sure) Melihs blog.
At that time i was wondering, why this page has been emptied. But i thought, well, at least everyone can see that (1/3) a part of the complains are not viewable by the readers.
And today, as i joined this topic, i made a recheck of the email reproduction, initially for re-reading.
Surprisingly the existence of an emptied page (which former content was a part of the complain thematic when av-c wrote it) was suddenly erased.
That is disturbing.
I’m guessing that original tidy-up operation failed and left the 3rd URL you followed broken, which is why you were dumped to Melih’s site rather than the forums. What I’ve posted pre-dates all of that. But, as I indicated, it’s still wrong. When someone cut my post out (the sender I assume), they ended up merging Tech’s and Melih’s posts together like they’re one post (the original topic supports this). Of course, what they wanted (I assume) was Melih’s post/reply… which sort of ended up being wrongly attributed to Tech in the email.
BTW There are actually 5 links in what I posted… it’s just that 2 are repeats and 3 of the 5 are not hot-links on the forums due to line-wrapping.
If you have checked the real email (not the reproduction),
and if you can confirm that there has NOT been a Post 3 link from day one, initiated by av-c,
even if for the viewers of the reproduction there was a Post 3 link visible and clickable,
then it just looked like i described.
Can you confirm these points?
What i ask still, why has been a Post 3 link there (for long time), if there wasnt a reason? Someone had to change an url to a “named link”, what link was that?
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
thats me being lazy…they were all pointed and 3 was a replication etc…all there…
I take it as word
with all due respect Kail, but that’s the way to discuss as a person who have the function of a moderator in this forum??? O_o (And please, now do not say SLE had started so! - that will be more childish only) - allways I thought a moderator will consider all facts objectively. Again for you as a moderator, ALL FACTS! - even if you are a moderator of the COMODO forum. But it seems i was wrong … pity … cause it seems you are only siding/partisanship with Melih.
I think Melih can defends himself very well - it does not need you for it!
And you see, outside of the “comodo-world”, there are still people who are interested of that. Of the true story! And have normally open questions - And fact is, there are still questions that was not answered! Btw, to give back a question only, is still far from answering! And i think SLE and clockwork are not the only ones who have still questions and waiting for answers, but they open their mouth and speak out what others only think! Is that the problem? Is it your problem right now? Please stay objective Kail! The truth is there is only one who can answer all, that is Melih.
Allways bad to leave the thematic level, and switch to the personal level.
As i agree to that it was insulting, on the other hand Kail proved meanwhile also that he tries to look on what the people say. And if he has another opinion, he tries to achieve the substance for it.
Its not allways easy to discuss, but its a discussuion. The word liar, well, thats one of the things that stand in the book. So its normal to get a response which is not weak.
But whatever, has nothing to do with a discussion, the personal level.
Both`s post sentences should be configured to that.
There are coming to much unrelated influences in this thematic, which would wash it out.
And with all due respect to your good self as well M.Richter, I am a user (just like you) and as such I am posting in this topic as a user, not a Moderator (just as I am entitled to, see Forum Policy). If I had been acting as a Moderator in this topic, then I would have been the last person that SLE would have unjustly and wrongly called a liar on these forums and he would have had to have been a lot less insulting to Melih as well.
Anyway, despite what you may think of me, I do seek the truth and I would like AV-C to give me some truth (answers). But, I do wonder why both yourself and SLE do not seek the same thing. You talk of objectivity and yet you don’t seem to demonstrate any. Why is that? Do you already know everything from AV-C’s side? Enlighten me please.
I think If google can be transparent about its tests and funding then It AV-C should also be transparent if they receive any funding from any security company for their tests or if they are not cheating in anyway
[at]kail: Sorry if liar was a word which was to hard.
But to claim that I have something to do with AV-C (I also criticize them for many things - but I won’ show you in the forum) is just not true and so I can call that a lie. But I don’t say that all other statements of you are lies.
btw.: That critical minds with other opinions are personally attacked here (in threads, in ■■■) is not nice - but I don’t care for now.
If you talk 'bout my so called valid list, you can replace the word valid with FACT - it makes the content not weaker. It’s all written (ore mostly not written/answered…) in this thread. We are in Comodo Forum, so we can speak and ask question to Comodos CEO.
And that we only know excerpts form the story, which he wanted to show us seems to be a fact. Or not? And in this thread many questions were asked which Melih just ignored and always posted the same again and again, answered with requestions etc. So it’s generous that you tried to answer some - but the question were directed to him in his CEO corner.
After all I can accept that he is not willing to answer - so what remains are his abstract words and attacks in his own soap-opera. I think Melih and Comodo are isolationg more and more. Not in this forum - of course.
Your conditional apology is firmly rejected. >:(
I did not claim any such thing. I said that you were “siding” with AV-C and I even queried if you understood the definition of the word.
[url=http://www.thefreedictionary.com/side]Siding - To be in agreement with; support. To align oneself in a disagreement.[/url]
Despite the definition, the context was definitively querying your objectivity anyway. Critical minds indeed!