Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: James Egan on 11 May 2010 12:14 On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk(a)earthling.net> wrote: >Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar." > >http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar So if I wanted to express 0.5 as a vulgar fraction that would be "feckin' point five" Jim :)
From: Max Wachtel on 11 May 2010 12:16 On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries <rhondaleakirk(a)earthling.net> wrote: > Max Wachtel wrote: >> On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:25:53 -0400, Jenn >> <nope(a)noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote: >>> >>> >>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message >>> news:hrks1d0a7j(a)news5.newsguy.com... >>>> From: "~BD~" <BoaterDave(a)hot.mail.co.uk> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in >>>>> no way pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not* >>>>> intended to be offensive. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?act=boardrules >>>> >>>> Terms of Use: >>>> >>>> "You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, >>>> hateful, >>>> threatening, >>>> sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any >>>> applicable laws. In addition >>>> you will not engage in any sort of spamming, whether it is >>>> comment spam (injecting a >>>> comment into a thread for the purpose of placing a link back to >>>> a website >>>> offering the >>>> same services offered here; or services totally unrelated to >>>> this website), the use of >>>> signature links deemed to be for the sole purpose of increasing >>>> web traffic to a site of >>>> interest by the member, or any combination of those two >>>> examples. This includes the >>>> Personal Message feature." >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> so whats your point? The image is not any of that. >> >> I asked my wife what she thought of the image and she said that >> she "was offended, it was vulgar and should not be on a public >> forum". > > 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? -- This post was created using Opera(a)USB: http://www.opera-usb.com Virus Removal Instructions http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home Max's Favorite Freeware http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/freeware I'm Max Wachtel and I approve this message.
From: FromTheRafters on 11 May 2010 14:12 "James Egan" <jegan(a)jegan.com> wrote in message news:84te2vFsh0U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" > <rhondaleakirk(a)earthling.net> wrote: > >>Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar." >> >>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar > > > 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...
From: James Morrow on 11 May 2010 23:23 In article <hsaiis$t42$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, nope(a)noway.atnohow.anyday says... > > "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message > news:hsagh70t4j(a)news6.newsguy.com... > > From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk(a)earthling.net> > > > > > > > > | Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar." > > > > | http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar > > > > Everyone's caught up on the content. Is it vulgar ? Is it pornographic ? > > They are moot > > points and they don't matter. > > All that does matter is the Malwarebytes' AUP/ToS and BD violating the > > clause; "You agree > > not to post ... sexually-oriented..." > > > > http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?s=6eda7899360e71e75717e9d607179bef&act=boardrules > > > > > > > What do you mean by sexually-oriented? > > We are not discussing milk cows. Yes, this is sexually orientated. Any other conclusion is utterly unsupportable. -- James E. Morrow Email to: jamesemorrow(a)email.com
From: Jenn on 11 May 2010 23:44
James Morrow wrote: > In article <hsaiis$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. -- Jenn (from Oklahoma) |