The CEO came in and the last thing he wrote was this:
“Arthur has been open and has come and explained himself (including his efforts to try get himself off that list).
Anything else we can do? pls let me know…”
See the question he asked?
Is there anything else?
From his statement it is clear to me that this has been settled, so he is asking if there is anything else.
I trust the CEO, so if he feels it is settled, that is good enough for me.
Of course, it may not be good enough for you, but as I said previously, this is not a democracy, an open-source project or a non-profit organization.
If you disagree with the policy, you have every right to use another product, or even rally some of the other disgruntled users here to leave and create a splinter organization, like some linux distributions have done…
I would have suggested OpenComodo, but unfortunately I believe “Comodo” is a trademark.
THIS is Melih’s last post, and I read it carefully:
As for the community’s response, I never suggested nor implied that it was a democracy and I CLEARLY understand it is a for-profit operation. (Have you read MY posts?) Comodo will do whatever Comodo wants to do, I think that’s clear. But, based on Mehil’s openness (and his posts clearly indicate that he is still open for information) I’m betting he will consider the reaction to the community (Comodo’s community and the security community) in his decision.
The community plays an important role in any security product. If it, indeed, turns out that PCSecurityShield is NOT totally on the up and up with their tactics, the community (that is, the security community) WILL take notice. Security-related blogs have already begun to question the arrangement. It will take a little more than the owner of PCSecurityShield’s word that everything is AOK to convince them otherwise.
But, it is clear that I am talking a bit over your head, on this. So, let’s just leave it at that.
I think by now the community knows who is in over his head from who isn’t, thanks.
Why not create a poll and see who agrees with you?
Maybe when you see that the majority see this as a non-issue you will get a clue.
I am amazed at your willingness to show your ignorance.
It is obvious that this response is a tongue-in-cheek suggestion to Red that if he is so knowledgeable about how easily the two individuals can be contacted, that he could volunteer to get more information.
Even Floyd, with his high-school forum mentality, caught this; I guess “The Dean” was out to lunch…
I hear that, and much of the back and forth is tedious and unproductive.
Ewen, I notice that there is no mention of Comodo on The Shield page, as there is for Kaspersky, F-Secure and Hauri on their respective product pages. Do you know if that was a conscious decision by Comodo?
Thanks
EDIT: It occurs to me that, since Comodo is free, it is probably unwise for PCSecurityShield to publicize that they use their product.
I always knew there was something fishy with this hyped marketing fart called Comodo.
I just installed it once, got rid of it with lots of hassling, have and will NEVER install this smellware again.
Good luck to you, fanboys.
P.S. Don’t forget that Comodo was hyped with the help of investigation agencies. Their backdoors are strictly followed by your beloved firewall called Comodo.
It would appear that poor Arthur, of pcsecurityshield has very much been a victim of circumstance, and that everyone else is to blame for the position his company now finds itself in.
Paying adware authors to advertise his products on victims pcs?
DSLReports is even older than Spyware Warrior and that does not even talk about our products but apparently some marketing methods.
Yeah, right. So paying adware authors to display ads on victims pc is simply a “marketing method”? Welp, nothing wrong with that then. 88)
Since things never go away once they are on the internet, isn't it a consumers responsibility to take note of when they were posted before they put them down as fact?
Hahaha. It is the responsibility of every user to ignore anything written prior to the present day. It is completely up to the consumer to be responsible, my company bears no responsibility whatsoever for its past actions.
Site Advisor (http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/pcsecurityshield.com) has told us that even through they have downloaded and tested our software 21 times (check their site) and found NO issues, they still will not correct our "rating" until SpywareWarrior does.
Funny that, when i do check SA’s site, I see
Feedback from credible users indicates this site engaged in one or more negative or undesired activities.
After entering our e-mail address on this site, we received 2.7 e-mails per week. They were somewhat spammy.
TBH, I must say that even though this thread has been most annoying, it has also been most enlightening…
IMHO True colors have been revealed with regards to who really believes in and supports Comodo…
YES, OFCOURCE I DON’T SUPPORT COMODO, that’s why I got a pm from Kevin last week in wich he thanked me for my effort to help here on the forum. So please shut up Axl >:(
axl, do you think that maybe the reason so many comodo users post in here with concern is because they want to make sure comodo isn’t being ripped off? Which still isn’t 100% clear to me yet actually…
Thank you very much for that link. Those are the same guys as we are speaking of here :o
So, after putting together all of the clues, I can reveal a brilliantly unethical master plan:
1) Create a product, or buy a license from an existing vendor.
2) Set up a fake independent review site with affiliate links, ranking the products in the order of what would bring the most money. Make the review site look as unrelated to the product site as possible. Put up a disclaimer, saying it is a subjective opinion only.
3) Buy the expensive top-slot sponsored ads from the search engine to draw the traffic to the review site. Since people know the top slot sponsored ads are expensive, they are going to trust the review site more. But, the bottom line for the review site is that if a high percentage of the incoming clicks from the sponsored ads go out via more expensive affiliate links, then there is a positive cash flow.
Oh darn those trolls over at Symantec! (:WIN) Hopefully this will get Melih’s attention. Whether this is a good or bad thing, I was kinda neutral until the Symantec thing was brought forth.
Another thing that seems to keep getting left off the discussion although it was mentioned earlier in thread is of all the 3rd party Hosts file that block this site(s) as well. Now that could be a direct result of still being on the rogue list however I’m pretty sure some of these Hosts authors check to see if the entries are still needed.
