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!
No claim? So, I missunderstood your first wrote:
…
The sliding thing: If asking questions about the specific and partially (mis?)information Melih gives, means automatically that someone is supporting the attacked company - than you’re right.
But I showed some facts, f.e. that it is nothing new that they are paid.
The only thing in the whole blogposts that was really new for me is that Comodo took part in on-demand test(s) but never released that to customers. Transparency? O i forgot - of course they were forced…
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Umesh Kumar Gupta wrote:
Single Product Test…we would like to go for that and_we would like to see results before we decide that you could publish results_.
That’s right, I said that you were transparently siding with AV-C against Comodo. You still are. What’s your point?
My points are in your so called “valid list”. Only partly information, missed facts, open questions in this thread
…and of course I’m looking only on Melih’s side for that here:
That list, as I previously explained, is merely the inverted version of your own list to show that you are siding with AV-C over Comodo. Your response to it has been informative and clearly demonstrates that you didn’t come here with an open or critical mind at all. Just the opposite in fact.
No. If you are honestly you see that every fact in my original list is true - as shown with examples many times. But it’s not your job to answer - the person who could didn’t.
Your list is nonsensical, as I previously indicated and demonstrated. It is way too vague to be considered anything else. And, despite your assertions to the contrary, to the best of my knowledge the inverted version of your list contains nothing but facts as well. But, it’s interesting that you think it doesn’t. Can you highlight the falsehoods please.
This isn’t my job at all. But, wait… you see this as your Job?
You can call it nonsense as often as you want. Everybody can look for himself.
My:
Your word-playing:
i Valid AV-C hasn’t contradicted Comodo’s evidence. Suspicious/odd. Issue of trust.[/i]
Partly yes - but why should they come out in that public speculation game?
i Valid is that many questions are unanswered.[/i]
See above. We are in Melihs subforum, so here is the place for him to answer. He startet the public game.
i Valid is that the fact that AV-C gags vendors is nothing new.[/i]
Evidence? Why vendors sign the contracts?
i Valid is no evidence has been presented by AV-C to demonstrate their independence.[/i]
Yes - but the same is valid for the opposite.
This isn't my job at all. But, wait.[b]. you see this as your Job?[/b]No I was just asking questions to CEO Melih... ;)
Everything that you have applied to your list can equally be applied to the inverted list, and vice versa, with one exception…
What? Seriously? Do you really not know what AV-C attempted to blackmail Comodo over? ie. why this whole thing began? Wow.
Sorry, we are done. I’ve had enough of your ill-informed trolling.
Could we please go back on topic.
We sincerely hope that AV-Comparatives will take up the offer for Comodo to bring a 3rd party to validate and audit them in the interest of end users.
Please read the Forum Policy before anyone posts again.
Personal attacks against Members or Staff will not be tolerated.
I will not repeat this warning post, all further Infringements will result in a Post Ban
Thank you
Dennis
AV-Comparatives calls themselves "independent’ while getting money from AntiVirus vendors: As per FCC (Federal Communication Commission) this is not advised.
When will AV-Comparatives stop calling themselves ‘independent’? this is misleading the public.
http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/guides/ftc/ftcendorse.htm (This is from Federal Trade Commission)
[b]§255.5 Disclosure of material connections.
When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product which might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience) such connection must be fully disclosed.[/b]
Melih:
You again post the same every time… have you nothing more, nothing special to say?
Statements and remarks about the postet you’ll find in this thread.
__
After all , I’ll quote myself
and Kail:
FullAck.
I think no new and real information appears here and to jump into personal attacking of members etc. - no not my style, it only shows that people have no arguments more.
because i still have no answer to it, and i will continue asking it…pls do not poison the thread as the thread about AV-Comparatives issues and until we get answers we will continue asking
they cannot call themselves “independent” its unethical!
http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/guides/ftc/ftcendorse.htm (This is from Federal Trade Commission)
[b]§255.5 Disclosure of material connections.
When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product which might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience) such connection must be fully disclosed.[/b]
I don’t - but you also gave NO answers.
_
And because posting exact the same sentences agian and again seems to be a trend here - Please:
So would you please be so nice to show me, as a non lawyer, the line in FCC that makes clear the FCC is relevant for an Austrian NGO, for AV-C, at all?
My conclusion is: You have only words, claims, speculations and suggestions about AV-C.
You never answered any question and so my own speculation is, that all the mails and NDA parts you have shown are only excerpts! You only showed a short part from the story, only the part that fits for you … so I speculate you are misleading public !! Ethical?
Nevertheless I understand that you don’t answer those things in public.
_
Ok - really enough. Now post your standard sentences again. Bye!
“Independent” is a kind of mind. I can be independent just by being it. And i can make an independent test, even though ALL participants paid a fee.
You try to describe and to “judge” the mind of people, but you simply show “business structure and “spezific”-state regulation statements of business”, and make suggestive assumptions out of these combinations. Thats a bit strange.
Lets see:
Melih: "AV-Comparatives calls themselves “independent’ while getting money from AntiVirus vendors”.
If this would be the core, even a supervision test would not put it away. Would be funny if an official approved tester would take 49,95 later, while it has been 19,95 before 
… i dont see more independency here.
I would call it independent if someone doesnt put his sails in any wind that blows. Thats why this “donate somewhere else later” is independent.
If you could tell them what to do, i would wonder what a “regular paying” competitor could tell them to do. That is something like consequence.
In the end, there are still and definitely two sides.
AV-Comparatives can make all communication public…we have nothing to hide…you are simply a troll who came to this forum with one intention to attempt to protect AVC. What they do is unethical and mislead the public…they call themselves without revealing their financial relationship as per FCC guidelines…the proof is written all over their website and their test results…they do NOT say they get paid when they present the test results…that is the proof! Why are you choosing to be blind and letting AV-Comparatives mislead public by pretending to be “independent”? You asked me to show you FCC guideline I did but you still are in denial…wonder why 
Why they should - only because you want and claim things?
Maybe there are people out there who respect private communication and keep such things private?
And please not again “they forced us…” - you were the first and only who made such things public.
Arguments not personal attacks please! Read your forum guidelines. My intention was to get answers to questions that I had to you in that story. You are not able or willing to give clear answers, ok.
...the proof is written all over their website and their test results...they do NOT say they get paid when they present the test results...that is the proof!Funny. First you said they don't say it at all. Now that you can't ignore the fact that this is written down in methodologie at their website and every disclaimer has a hint to read this methododoloy for more details, you say it must be clearer when they present the results.
Why are you choosing to be blind and letting AV-Comparatives mislead...I'm not blind and also have often questions to them - but here is the place to talk with the Comodo CEO and so my questions regarding AV-C are irrelevant in that place.
You asked me to show you FCC guideline I did but you still are in denial...wonder why ;)I asked you to show me why those guidelines should be relevant and obligating for AV-C, an austrian non-profit organisation. Thats a different question.
Seriously…discussion with you is like trying to nail a jelly to a wall 
you don’t have a framework for your discussion. you wander anywhere and everywhere…so that me done with you…but of course let me re-iterate:
AV-comparatives cannot call themselves “independent” without revealing their financial relationship with Antivirus vendors…its unethical and against FCC regulations.
http://www.mlmlaw.com/library/guides/ftc/ftcendorse.htm (This is from Federal Trade Commission)
[b]§255.5 Disclosure of material connections.
When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product which might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience) such connection must be fully disclosed.[/b]
Blah. My framework…I had clear and direct questions and you never had a clear answer - thats whats the result. So it was not really a discussion at all. You always hide beside the same abstract sentences.
Melih, i think not that SLE have not understand the FCC regulations. The question was, are this FCC regulations valid for an austrian non-profit company? Are they valid for other countries too, or only in the US? U have not show the part, that it is valid for all non-profit companies in all countries of the world! Maybe i have misunderstand too, but i think that was the question what SLE tries to get answered.
And i want know it too, cause i dont find it anywhere, that it is valid for all non-profit companies in all countries of the world.
If it is not valid for all, than we must not discuss about this again… then we have our answer…