Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries on 16 May 2010 14:02 JD wrote: > 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 Perhaps I'll collect some examples of their morphs and send them on to the ISPs in question. > Two changes for her and three for him since I started to > kill-file them two weeks ago. What a pair. And I see they're still at it. One wonders if they say, "No one warned me" when the nice police office stops them for speeding. I suppose they'd try the same if they killed someone. -- 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 15:35 Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote: > JD wrote: >> 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 > > Perhaps I'll collect some examples of their morphs and send them on to the > ISPs in question. > >> Two changes for her and three for him since I started to >> kill-file them two weeks ago. > > What a pair. And I see they're still at it. One wonders if they say, "No one > warned me" when the nice police office stops them for speeding. I suppose > they'd try the same if they killed someone. > Add a new one for him: BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk As I have ask everyone here, please stop replying to them. Nobody is as dumb as they profess to be. The OaKie is waiting for someone to explain when an image becomes pornographic? It's a comedy of morons! -- JD..
From: Jenn on 16 May 2010 16:33 ~BD~ wrote: > 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! :) YW ... :) I would do it for whoever I felt was being treated unfairly. -- Jenn (from Oklahoma)
From: Jenn on 16 May 2010 16:40 Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote: > JD wrote: >> 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 > > Perhaps I'll collect some examples of their morphs and send them on > to the ISPs in question. > >> Two changes for her and three for him since I started to >> kill-file them two weeks ago. > > What a pair. And I see they're still at it. One wonders if they say, > "No one warned me" when the nice police office stops them for > speeding. I suppose they'd try the same if they killed someone. Well.. I have no morphs for you to send ... but I do post via 2 computers a majority of the time, and my laptop on occasion, which would make 3 computers. They each have a different spoofed email.... no morphs.. sorry to burst your little bubble. -- Jenn (from Oklahoma)
From: Jenn on 16 May 2010 16:43
JD wrote: > Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote: >> What a pair. And I see they're still at it. One wonders if they say, >> "No one warned me" when the nice police office stops them for >> speeding. I suppose they'd try the same if they killed someone. >> > > Add a new one for him: > > BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.uk > > As I have ask everyone here, please stop replying to them. Nobody is > as dumb as they profess to be. The OaKie is waiting for someone to > explain when an image becomes pornographic? It's a comedy of morons! This Okie (not Oakie), keeps asking one simple question. Thus far, it would seem the morons are the people who can't answer the simple question. No one will try to answer it because the answer is subjective... if and when anyone attempts to answer my question, they will lose the argument and that's why no one has tried. Now ... at what point does an image become sexually-oriented? -- Jenn (from Oklahoma) |