Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?
in [Viruses]
|
From: James Egan on 12 May 2010 06:09 On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:12:29 -0400, "FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote: >> So if I wanted to express 0.5 as a vulgar fraction that would be >> "feckin' point five" > >5/10, 6/12, 233/466, then get the lowest vulgar denominator... > It was supposed to be a joke. Jim
From: Jenn on 12 May 2010 12:08 Max Wachtel wrote: > On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries >> >> Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar." >> >> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar >> > > one would think that living in the "bible belt" would cause one's > morals to be a little higher than those living in,let's say,Vegas? I'm also a Christian... what's that have to do with this image you are discussing? Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented". Do you mean an image that turns people on? What do you mean because there are many images that could fall into either category but are not removed from groups that consider themselves to be family oriented. -- Jenn (from Oklahoma) http://pqlr.org/bbs/
From: Max Wachtel on 12 May 2010 20:19 On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:08:27 -0400, Jenn <me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote: > Max Wachtel wrote: >> On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries > >>> >>> Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar." >>> >>> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar >>> >> >> one would think that living in the "bible belt" would cause one's >> morals to be a little higher than those living in,let's say,Vegas? > > I'm also a Christian... what's that have to do with this image you are > discussing? > > Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented". Do you > mean > an image that turns people on? What do you mean because there are many > images that could fall into either category but are not removed from > groups > that consider themselves to be family oriented. BD got himself banned for the image in question. Most of the forums I frequent would not have allowed it either. -- This post was created using Opera: http://www.opera.com Virus Removal Instructions http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home Max's Favorite Freeware http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/freeware I am Max Wachtel and I approve this message.
From: Jenn on 12 May 2010 23:05 Max Wachtel wrote: > On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:08:27 -0400, Jenn > <me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote: > >> Max Wachtel wrote: >>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries >> >>>> >>>> Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word >>>> "vulgar." http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar >>>> >>> >>> one would think that living in the "bible belt" would cause one's >>> morals to be a little higher than those living in,let's say,Vegas? >> >> I'm also a Christian... what's that have to do with this image you >> are discussing? >> >> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented". Do you >> mean >> an image that turns people on? What do you mean because there are >> many images that could fall into either category but are not removed >> from groups >> that consider themselves to be family oriented. > > BD got himself banned for the image in question. Most of the forums I > frequent would not have allowed it either. I'm aware of all that... no one can tell me what about that image makes it sexually oriented. At what point does any image qualify as being sexually oriented? Is it at the point it gets someone aroused? If that is true, other images should be disallowed, too. Also, what about the image was "vulgar"?? Do tell? I'd like an explanation. Thus far, you and others have labeled the image as both vulgar and sexually oriented so it was unsuitable for malwarebytes forum, yet NO ONE will explain at what point an image becomes, either. It sounds like some ambiguous determination based on a conclusion written on the wind. So .. answer my questions above. If no one can answer then, the only conclusions is that the image can't be either vulgar or sexually oriented. -- Jenn (from Oklahoma)
From: James Morrow on 13 May 2010 20:39
In article <hsd863$bai$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, nope(a)noway.atnohow.anyday says... > James Morrow wrote: > > In article <hsaiis$t42$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > nope(a)noway.atnohow.anyday says... > >> > >> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message > >> news:hsagh70t4j(a)news6.newsguy.com... > >>> From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk(a)earthling.net> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word > >>>> "vulgar." > >>> > >>>> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar > >>> > >>> Everyone's caught up on the content. Is it vulgar ? Is it > >>> pornographic ? They are moot > >>> points and they don't matter. > >>> All that does matter is the Malwarebytes' AUP/ToS and BD violating > >>> the clause; "You agree > >>> not to post ... sexually-oriented..." > >>> > >>> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?s=6eda7899360e71e75717e9d607179bef&act=boardrules > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> What do you mean by sexually-oriented? > >> > >> > > > > We are not discussing milk cows. Yes, this is sexually orientated. Any > > other conclusion is utterly unsupportable. > > Why is the image considered to be sexually oriented? > Also, why is the sigtag image the other poster on malwarebytes not > considered to be sexually oriented. They are very similar. > > That would a subjective judgement by myself only. But that is my judgement. Your opinion my be different. The phrase "utterly unsupportable' was intended to be in jest. -- James E. Morrow Email to: jamesemorrow(a)email.com |