Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: ~BD~ on 15 May 2010 03:12 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> Newsgroups: alt.privacy.spyware,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.virus Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 4:21 AM Subject: Re: Is MBAM a 100% safe application? > From: "Max Wachtel" <maxpro4u(a)hotmail.com> > > | 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. > > > No, he received no warning. Ah! The truth at last! :) I received NO warning. > After the 1st post with the attached graphic, the post was > removed. When I checked to make sure it was there - it wasn't. I know full well that things go awry when computing, so I simply re-posted the image NOT intending to cause offense - it was meant to be a bit of fun! > After the 2cnd post, he was subsequently banned. Indeed I was. A silly fit of pique in my opinion - unless there is more to this incident than meets the eye. A question for David Lipman - please advise - just *how* do you know that this is an accurate picture of what happened? Dustin Cook ( a Malwarebytes employee?) said a while ago, incorrectly, that a warning *was* issued! Folk reading here need to know whose word they can trust! -- Dave BD
From: Bullwinkle on 15 May 2010 07:03 So call off your fatass pig nose lap dog troll. "~BD~" <BoaterDave(a)nospam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:hslhqe$muv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... -- Dave BD
From: David H. Lipman on 15 May 2010 07:28 From: "~BD~" <BoaterDave(a)nospam~@hotmail.co.uk> | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> | Newsgroups: | alt.privacy.spyware,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.virus | Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 4:21 AM | Subject: Re: Is MBAM a 100% safe application? >> From: "Max Wachtel" <maxpro4u(a)hotmail.com> >> | 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. >> No, he received no warning. | Ah! The truth at last! :) I received NO warning. >> After the 1st post with the attached graphic, the post was >> removed. | When I checked to make sure it was there - it wasn't. I know full well | that | things go awry when computing, so I simply re-posted the image NOT | intending | to cause offense - it was meant to be a bit of fun! >> After the 2cnd post, he was subsequently banned. | Indeed I was. A silly fit of pique in my opinion - unless there is more | to | this incident than meets the eye. | A question for David Lipman - please advise - just *how* do you know | that | this is an accurate picture of what happened? Dustin Cook ( a | Malwarebytes | employee?) said a while ago, incorrectly, that a warning *was* issued! | Folk | reading here need to know whose word they can trust! People know they can't trust YOU !~ It doesn't matter the content of the picture and it doesn't matter that you didn't receive a warning. Both are moot points just READ the AUP/ToS that YOU agreed to. Nothing in there states about and form of warning. All that matters is that you violated the AUP/ToS you agreed to and thus you were ToS'd. End of Story ! -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
From: Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries on 15 May 2010 10:29 David H. Lipman wrote: > From: "Max Wachtel" <maxpro4u(a)hotmail.com> > >> 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. > > > No, he received no warning. After the 1st post with the attached > graphic, the post was removed. For a normally intelligent person, the removal of the post would be warning enough. > After the 2cnd post, he was subsequently banned. He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. -- Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously. Hubert H. Humphrey
From: David H. Lipman on 15 May 2010 10:50
From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk(a)earthling.net> | David H. Lipman wrote: >> From: "Max Wachtel" <maxpro4u(a)hotmail.com> >>> 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. >> No, he received no warning. After the 1st post with the attached >> graphic, the post was removed. | For a normally intelligent person, the removal of the post would be warning | enough. >> After the 2cnd post, he was subsequently banned. | He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Not even an 'edge'. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp |