Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries on 16 May 2010 10:34 JD wrote: > And believe me, they know what they're doing because they both > keep changing their reply to name so I have to continue to update > my filter for them. If that's the case (I don't read most of what they write, so I don't know first-hand), I'd netcop them both. Most acceptable use policies forbid morphing to evade killfiles, and if they learn the hard way, maybe they'll stop. rl -- Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously. Hubert H. Humphrey
From: JD on 16 May 2010 12:22 Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote: > JD wrote: > >> And believe me, they know what they're doing because they both >> keep changing their reply to name so I have to continue to update >> my filter for them. > > If that's the case (I don't read most of what they write, so I don't know > first-hand), I'd netcop them both. Most acceptable use policies forbid > morphing to evade killfiles, and if they learn the hard way, maybe they'll > stop. > > rl > The only way to stop them is to not reply to them. From my message rules: "BoaterDave"@nospam~@hotmail.co.uk BoaterDave~no.spam~@hotmail.co.uk BoaterDave(a)hotmail..co.uk me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway nope(a)noway.atnohow.anyday Two changes for her and three for him since I started to kill-file them two weeks ago. -- JD..
From: Jenn on 16 May 2010 12:48 Peter Foldes wrote: > > "Jenn" <nope(a)noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message > news:hsnr1q$tnt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Dustin Cook wrote: >>> "~BD~" <BoaterDave(a)nospam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in >>> news:hslhqe$muv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: >>> >>>>> No, he received no warning. >>>> >>>> Ah! The truth at last! :) I received NO warning. >>> >>> I mistakenly assumed that you would understand the picture being >>> deleted was a warning not to do it again. My bad. I will try to be >>> much more specific in exactly what I intend to say to you from here >>> on out. >> >> It's about time you let everyone know that Dave was telling the >> truth about not getting a warning. > Jenn > > That is a warning. And he received it 2 times. I don't understand why > he and yourself are the 2 only ones that do not understand that. Most > all others and including myself know this. A warning contains language of a warning. An image disappearing from a bbs without any explanation looks more like an error either on the ng itself or an error in sending a post. The natural response is to think.."I could swear I posted that.. something must have gone ary so I'll repost and see if it goes through this time." > Instead of being in a chat group and if you would be participating in > help groups then you would know this. It's not rocket science, Peter. Someone tells you that you were warned.. you go back looking for test with words containing a warning of some sort... you see no words to that effect, therefore, you respond with, "I don't see a warning.. what are you talking about?" Dave kept saying he did not see any warning, and he was right, since a person can't see a warning if no text is posted to imply a warning. -- Jenn (from Oklahoma)
From: Jenn on 16 May 2010 12:54 JD wrote: > Peter Foldes wrote: >> Jenn >> >> That is a warning. And he received it 2 times. I don't understand >> why he and yourself are the 2 only ones that do not understand that. >> Most all others and including myself know this. >> Instead of being in a chat group and if you would be participating in >> help groups then you would know this. Aside from this BD knows this >> quite well since it is not the first time around with similar >> deletions and explanations . He just played coy so as he can have >> sympathy and backup. Typical BD. Looks more and more that you are >> the dumb one. > They get it. They've got you and a few others replying to the same bs > over and over and over and over and over again. No matter what you > explain, they have a question. And it just goes on and on and on and > on and on. > > "Why is the image vulgar?, define vulgar, I don't think it's vulgar, > he didn't get a warning, what is a warning?. I still want to know what about the image is vulgar or sexualy oriented, and no one evidently can put into words what makes it vulgar or sexually oriented. If you say because it has breasts showing makes it sexually oriented, then you will have to also say the cartoon image is also sexually oriented because it also has breasts showing and it should also be removed... but no one will go there because then they might have to admit that Daves banning due to the image was wrong, or even that another person should also get similar treatment for a cartoon image. It's the details that count in such things. They jumped the gun in banning Dave and if they wanted to be fair they would have posted a definitive text warning and not make assumptions he understood that THEY removed the image when in reality he thought the image being gone was an error and reposted it to fix what he thought was an error. But, hey .... some people like that bbs admins make mistakes, but once made they don't care about fixing them. -- Jenn (from Oklahoma)
From: ~BD~ on 16 May 2010 13:24
Jenn wrote: > Dustin Cook wrote: >> "~BD~"<BoaterDave(a)nospam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in >> news:hslhqe$muv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: >> >>>> No, he received no warning. >>> >>> Ah! The truth at last! :) I received NO warning. >> >> I mistakenly assumed that you would understand the picture being >> deleted was a warning not to do it again. My bad. I will try to be >> much more specific in exactly what I intend to say to you from here >> on out. > > It's about time you let everyone know that Dave was telling the truth about > not getting a warning. I appreciate your support Jenn - folk need to appreciate that I *do* tell the truth! :) -- Dave |