[Marco van Herwaarden]

Originally Posted by Paul M

Huh ?

Just exactly what am I searching for ways out of ?? I PM'd you and asked if this thread was about my code and you flatly refused to answer. Even now it's not actually been stated anywhere that this is about my auto install link code, it's been left to us to work it out. You avoid and bluster like a politician when asked to confirm a simple question - was this about my code or not.

Do you see me deny that that I included this in a few hacks last month ? No. Did it break any rules, No. In fact, had it worked 100% correctly the only thing it would do is make the install count a little more accurate, since it only got called if you installed it (not downloaded it) - and it clicked uninstall if you removed it (how many people do that manually ?)

You state that you have been discussing this for weeks (it's only existed for five weeks !) yet no one once actually bothered to contact me once - instead you wait a few weeks and post a massive thread which has a tone like the end of the world has just arrived. Talk of nonsense like loopholes, security threats, and the like - none of which has any relevance to my two lines of code.

I will try once more to give you an answer to this:

This whole thread is about a policy being introduced, as stated in the first post. Nothing more and nothing less. Whatever event triggered us to start thinking about this issue and made us write this policy, is not relevant to the policy (and thus this thread) itself. This thread is here to discuss this new policy. This policy is bigger then any current issue that i am aware of, and is just here to make things clear for the future.

The question that is relevant to you "would this technique i am using fall under the new policy?" has been clearly answered with a yes. So i think we have been clear and open in answering all relevant questions.