Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

error loading C:\PROGAM~1\NEWDOT~1\NEWDOT~2.DLL Friday, October 5, 2007 at 1:24 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Ronald Kresh wrote: ...the system cannot find the specified path. http://google.com/search?q=GIYF http://google.com/search?q=NEWDOT-1+NEWDOT-2 Most folks here don't bother helping with infections any more. cache of http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/help_forum#inappropriate ...and most folks will tell you to CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR: cache of http://techguylabs.com/radio/ShowNotes/Show327#toc3 What you need is a Malware Forum: cache of http://www.geekstogo.com/forum/Must-Read-Before-Posting-Hijackthis-Log-t2852.html [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: RUNDLL error on start up Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 3:23 pm Posted by Joe Hepperle (73 messages posted) Regardless of what other posters may have written, NewDotNet is not MalWare, nor is it an "infection". And help is always available here. There may be some bad-actors who claim otherwise, but don't believe them. NewDotNet is a browser plugin that usually gets installed when you install media players or peer-to-peer file sharing programs (like Kazaa). It usually is easily removable, and doesn't require running HiJackThis or any other similar program, so ignore any other poster here who implies that you are doing something wrong by posting your 'Annoyance' issue here. NewDotNet has an uninstall tool available on their website (something that malware, spyware, and adware companies don't do). That is located at: http://www.newdotnet.com/ Scroll way to the bottom of the page... there is a link there. They also have a removal FAQ page at: http://www.new.net/help_faq.tp#p4 Joe Hepperle [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: RUNDLL error on start up Monday, October 8, 2007 at 11:31 am Posted by Ronald Kresh (10 messages posted) Thank you for your help. It seems as though the RUNDLL error I was getting in regard to the NEWDOT program is gone as it did not appear on my latest reboot. It took the 3rd procedure on their website (open "C" drive and then open "windows" and then find NDNuninstaller to remove this) but it appears to have worked. Many thanks for your time! Ron Kresh On Saturday, October 6, 2007 at 3:23 pm, Joe Hepperle wrote: >Regardless of what other posters may have written, NewDotNet is not MalWare, nor >is it an "infection". And help is always available here. There may be some bad-actors >who claim otherwise, but don't believe them. > >NewDotNet is a browser plugin that usually gets installed when you install media >players or peer-to-peer file sharing programs (like Kazaa). > >It usually is easily removable, and doesn't require running HiJackThis or any other >similar program, so ignore any other poster here who implies that you are doing something >wrong by posting your 'Annoyance' issue here. > >NewDotNet has an uninstall tool available on their website (something that malware, >spyware, and adware companies don't do). That is located at: >http://www.newdotnet.com/ > >Scroll way to the bottom of the page... there is a link there. They also have a removal >FAQ page at: > >http://www.new.net/help_faq.tp#p4 > >Joe Hepperle [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: RUNDLL error on start up Tuesday, October 9, 2007 at 11:39 am Posted by Ms. Eagle (33640 messages posted) NewDotNet IS considered malware. Many malwares have s'posed uninstallers available. http://cexx.org/newnet.htm As for bad actors, it appears as though you're doing a fantastic job in that dept. Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: RUNDLL error on start up Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 10:35 pm Posted by Joe Hepperle (73 messages posted) Thank you for your post, Ms Eagle. I take it as a great compliment that "gewg" needs backup help. It's like receiving a reward! A big fat juicy championship trophy. I went to the page which you linked in your post, http://cexx.org/newnet.htm but I can find NO reference to NewDotNet being malware. The beginning of that web page explains how they originally, and erroneously had referred to NewDotNet as being malware. But when they were challenged on that claim by the lawyers for NewDotNet, they quickly changed their tune, like all people who play loose with the truth. This forced them to more accurately explain that NewDotNet is only Foistware, not malware. For perspective, here are three more examples of Foistware: You want Windows? You gotta take Internet Explorer - foisted. You want Netscape Navigator? You gotta take AOL Instant Messenger - foisted. You want certain Microsoft applications? You gotta take MSN Messenger - foisted. Malware is from the two words MALicious and SoftWARE. It is software or other code that is intended to do HARM to your computer. A number of folks can't distinguish between Malware, Spyware, Adware, Greyware, Virus, Trojan, Worm, and Browser Hijacker. There is also any number of people who refer to it all as "viruses" or "infections" or some other incorrect term. Any website that confuses these terms is useless for proving anything. If you can find a dictionary that defines "Malicious" as something other than intending to do harm, then we have something to expand on. There is also a small group of reality-disconnected people who claim that "Malware" is whatever they say it is. Their spew goes something like this, "Well, if I don't want it on my computer, then it is malware to me!". Imagine if we did that for real in our daily life. -- "What do you mean I'm late for work, boss? I'm only late if it's more than an hour AFTER I feel like getting up!" "What do you mean the bill is overdue? It isn't overdue until at least one week AFTER I decide to pay it!" You claimed that NewDotNet is considered malware, but your "proof" is a web page that says nothing of the kind. Folks that post here are looking for correct factual answers from those who have knowledge or experience. Grandma said two wrongs don't make a right. Every which way I do the math, it comes out the same. Looks like Grandma really knew her stuff. Double check my addition here, would you please? gewg (wrong) + Ms Eagle (wrong) Right Wrong x 2 And finally, it's disheartening that you imply my answer was wrong. In your post to Tony, at this link http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/1144201730 You said: "There's an uninstaller for [NewDotNet], put out by the vendor.... Just download the uninstaller... and... run it. You won't mess anything up. Here's the link to it... http://www.newdotnet.com/removal.html" Those are your words... Carol, errr Bald Eagle, errr Sybil, errr Ms Eagle -- you use all of these pseudonyms over on the XP forum. Do you have a need to hide? Joe Hepperle [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: RUNDLL error on start up Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 11:48 pm Posted by Ms. Eagle (33640 messages posted) Gewg_ doesn't need and didn't ask for backup help. The only type of award you have coming is nothing to boast about... Rundll, Mike, Runsan, i.e. internet troll. We aren't playing your game. The people at the cexx.org web site didn't say anything about being erroneous and didn't retract anything. As I said, NewDotNet is considered malware. No, it's not an infection, but anything that hijacks Winsock settings is malware. Adware, spyware, trojans, foistware, etc. are just different types of malware. Yes, running their uninstaller is the best means of removing it, but that changes nothing. Nope, I have no need to hide and would be rather difficult to do posting under the same acct., displaying my post count. Now, run along.... you're boring me with your diatribe. Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: RUNDLL error on start up Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 12:42 pm Posted by Joe Hepperle (73 messages posted) Hi again Ms Eagle: Wow! Another compliment! Thank you for putting me in the ALL-Stars league. Count ANOTHER trophy on my mantle! Maybe I should start collecting heads? LINK Rundll, LINK Mike, LINK Runsan, LINK i.e. internet troll. But don't forget LINK JazzMan, and LINK Charlie, and LINK Joe Hepperle Sorry about not getting back sooner. I was busy researching. I was sitting here ruminating about how you use multiple identities, but you and "gewg" seem to operate from the same script. He's mean, you're mean, he's sometimes helpful, you're sometimes helpful, he frequently posts when he doesn't know the answer, you frequently post when you don't know the answer. Then I thought about how You always conveniently appear when "gewg" gets stressed and pressed. You claim that "gewg" didn't summon you, but unfortunately, you and "gewg" have a history of this. You did it here, and you've done it before. http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1165695566 It seems you are mysteriously "summoned" when "gewg" can't stand the heat. It's the same scenario. A fellow is busy trading posts with "gewg" and then in a split-second shift, all of a sudden you are the one responding. It is so noticeable that even he asked the same question, "Can't "gewg" answer for himself?" And for the remainder of the post, "gewg" is suppressed while Ms Eagle, or Bald Eagle, or Carol, or Sybil finishes out the thread. Why did Kevin, at this post say you needed psycological help? http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/1144109706 I thought that was all pretty strange and it was just a collection of odd bits floating around in my head -- until now in this post. It all came together and "clicked" when I re-read the part you wrote, "We aren't playing your game" So I was doing research on MPD-DID It's okay Carol... I understand now. I understand how "malware" is whatever you say it is. I understand how you can claim that this web page here proves that NewDotNet is malware, even though it says nothing of the kind. - http://cexx.org/newnet.htm I understand how you can look at this Letter from Cexx to NewDotNet, read about all the retractions they had to make, but yet claim they made no retractions. - http://cexx.org/newdotresponse.htm And I understand how, to you, no matter how much proof from me you receive, it "...changes nothing...", in your eyes. It's okay Carol... Ms Eagle... Bald Eagle... Gewg... I understand now... ... ... ... Joe Hepperle [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: RUNDLL error on start up Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 3:00 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) |You claim that "gewg" didn't summon you, |but unfortunately, you and "gewg" have a history of this. | Joe Hepperle | "Great minds think alike." 8-) You seem to have missed the instances when Carol and I went at it hammer and tongs. |You did it here, and you've done it before. |http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1165695566 | Facinating that you select one of the best examples of a complete dolt (aka Runsan) who goes about handing out DANGEROUS advice. **Go poking around in your Registry with a text editor**. Indeed. |It's the same scenario. A fellow is busy trading posts with "gewg" |and then in a split-second shift, all of a sudden you are the one responding. | |And for the remainder of the post, "gewg" is suppressed |while Ms Eagle, or Bald Eagle, or Carol, or Sybil finishes out the thread. Interesting hypothesis. What size tinfoil hat do you wear? [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: RUNDLL error on start up Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 8:28 pm Posted by Ms. Eagle (33640 messages posted) Don't take it as a compliment. My only response in this post was to correct the misinformation you posted about NewDotNet, nothing to do with gewg. I don't use mulitple identities. It's the same acct., just changed my monicker a few times. Find someone else to argue with. Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum