Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
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: Dustin Cook on 13 May 2010 16:52 "Max Wachtel" <maxpro4u(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:op.vcmh7bcgxavyrp(a)max: > On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:56:45 -0400, Dustin Cook > <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> That was 5 years ago > > I can't believe its been that long.... Yep.. 5 years and counting :) -- "Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
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$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > nope(a)noway.atnohow.anyday says... > >> > >> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message > >> news:hsagh70t4j(a)news6.newsguy.com... > >>> From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk(a)earthling.net> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word > >>>> "vulgar." > >>> > >>>> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar > >>> > >>> Everyone's caught up on the content. Is it vulgar ? Is it > >>> pornographic ? They are moot > >>> points and they don't matter. > >>> All that does matter is the Malwarebytes' AUP/ToS and BD violating > >>> the clause; "You agree > >>> not to post ... sexually-oriented..." > >>> > >>> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?s=6eda7899360e71e75717e9d607179bef&act=boardrules > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> What do you mean by sexually-oriented? > >> > >> > > > > We are not discussing milk cows. Yes, this is sexually orientated. Any > > other conclusion is utterly unsupportable. > > Why is the image considered to be sexually oriented? > Also, why is the sigtag image the other poster on malwarebytes not > considered to be sexually oriented. They are very similar. > > That would a subjective judgement by myself only. But that is my judgement. Your opinion my be different. The phrase "utterly unsupportable' was intended to be in jest. -- James E. Morrow Email to: jamesemorrow(a)email.com
From: JD on 13 May 2010 20:54 James Morrow wrote: > In article<hsd863$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) |