Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?
in [Viruses]
|
From: JD on 13 May 2010 20:54 James Morrow wrote: > 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. > How you ever tried to explain something to a stick? No matter what you tell the stick, it will come back and ask basically the same question over and over again. Every time you reply, the stick will reply. Hence the term "dumb as a stick." You shouldn't have to explain that "utterly unsupportable" was a joke. Unless you're talking to a stick. Sometimes I throw a stick so my neighbor's dog will chase it. Sometimes the dog returns the stick and expects me to throw it again. This really has nothing to do with dumb as a stick but I do have experience with sticks. 8-) -- JD..
From: Jenn on 13 May 2010 23:06 James Morrow wrote: > 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. The entire scenario is subjective ... sooo.. since some people believe one particular image is sexually oriented and it was justified to be removed... I'd like to know what about the image qualified it to be sexually oriented. -- Jenn (from Oklahoma)
From: Jenn on 14 May 2010 00:14 JD wrote: > Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote: > Again the term "dumb as a stick." > > Sometimes I throw a stick so my neighbor's dog will chase it. > Sometimes the dog returns the stick and expects me to throw it again. > This really has nothing to do with dumb as a stick but I do have > experience with sticks. 8-) > > God I know it's hard to not keep throwing the stick to the neighbor's > dog but every time you throw the stick, it just comes back, dumber > than before. oh please, jd ... if you can't explain to anyone how you define what is vulgar or sexually oriented, how can you expect there to be any standard to judge an image? -- Jenn (from Oklahoma)
From: Max Wachtel on 14 May 2010 20:39 The point is that the mod thought the image was in violation and his opinion is all that matters. BD was warned by the mod that the pic was unacceptable and that is that. He was banned. End of story. -- 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: Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries on 14 May 2010 21:27
Max Wachtel wrote: > The point is that the mod thought the image was in violation and > his opinion is all that matters. BD was warned by the mod that > the pic was unacceptable and that is that. He was banned. End of > story. This is an exceptionally complex concept--one too involved for her tiny little brain to comprehend. And she's a lousy troll, to boot. -- Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously. Hubert H. Humphrey |