Ping: David Kaye

[~BD~]

David H. Lipman wrote:
>>
>> They weren't Easter bunnies. It was soft p.o.r.n. It was
>> inappropriate for the Malkwarebyte forums and the religious
>> Christians were offended.

What rubbish!

Most certainly there was no reason for banning me from the Malwarebytes
forums, that's for sure.

There's something that doesn't quite ring true about an organisation
which does not correspond in a civilised manner with the users of its
product.

Maybe someone like David Kaye has the experience to determine if a
machine is actually *clean* after installing and running MBAM. Someone,
surely, has carried out an independent check to give such a widely used
facility a clean bill of health. Whilst MBAM is obviously highly
effective at removing 'malware' why is it considered impossible for the
downloaded software to leave its *own* gremlin within the cleaned
machine?

Is Malwarebytes approved by Microsoft itself? If so, please cite
reference.

--
Dave - seeking only the truth!

[Dustin Cook]

"~BD~" <BoaterDaveNoSpam@Hotmail.co.uk> wrote in news:hqbpth$4k2$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> David H. Lipman wrote:
>>>
>>> They weren't Easter bunnies. It was soft p.o.r.n. It was
>>> inappropriate for the Malkwarebyte forums and the religious
>>> Christians were offended.
>
> What rubbish!
>
> Most certainly there was no reason for banning me from the Malwarebytes
> forums, that's for sure.

Uhh, no. You shouldn't be posting frontal nudie pics in a public forum.
Period. Soft, hard porn; makes no difference. If I ran a forum and you
did that, not only would I have banned you for it; I'd even send a form
letter to your ISP informing them of your trespass. They deleted it once
for you Dave, you went and posted it again. At that point, as David
Lipman already said; you were history.

*I* didn't ban you, didn't have anything to do with your being banned;
However, you wrote that I did. That's dishonest, Dave. As I told Jenn
previously, *you are* a dishonest person. It's in your nature. You try
and paint me out to be a bad guy; because you have limited information on
me, but it's really you doing bad things.

You have been told time and time again what pcbutts does, shown proof
beyond any doubt whatsoever, and yet you still try and paint me as a bad
guy. Heh, I never stole anybody elses work and claimed it as my own;
lamer.

> There's something that doesn't quite ring true about an organisation
> which does not correspond in a civilised manner with the users of its
> product.

I'm sorry? Civilised and yourself? very laughable; thank you.
What civilised person would go and write the garbage in pcbutts blog and
here? What on earth would make you want to question the integrity of
malwarebytes? They have worked hard to get where they are; very hard. And
you have no right posting this nonsense, none whatsoever.

> Maybe someone like David Kaye has the experience to determine if a
> machine is actually *clean* after installing and running MBAM. Someone,
> surely, has carried out an independent check to give such a widely used
> facility a clean bill of health. Whilst MBAM is obviously highly
> effective at removing 'malware' why is it considered impossible for the
> downloaded software to leave its *own* gremlin within the cleaned
> machine?

Malwarebytes has thousands of happy users, gets praise every single day
on many forums; continues to be one of the top rated downloads for
antimalware at cnet.com. What you claim just doesn't jive with reality.
Your consiperacy theory BS aside, that is.

--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

~BD~ wrote:
> David H. Lipman wrote:
>>>
>>> They weren't Easter bunnies. It was soft p.o.r.n. It was
>>> inappropriate for the Malkwarebyte forums and the religious
>>> Christians were offended.
>
> What rubbish!
>
> Most certainly there was no reason for banning me from the
> Malwarebytes forums, that's for sure.
>
> There's something that doesn't quite ring true about an
> organisation which does not correspond in a civilised manner with
> the users of its product.
>
> Maybe someone like David Kaye has the experience to determine if a
> machine is actually *clean* after installing and running MBAM.
> Someone, surely, has carried out an independent check to give
> such a widely used facility a clean bill of health. Whilst MBAM
> is obviously highly effective at removing 'malware' why is it
> considered impossible for the downloaded software to leave its
> *own* gremlin within the cleaned machine?
>
> Is Malwarebytes approved by Microsoft itself? If so, please cite
> reference.

Malwarebytes is approved by Microsoft at least to the extent that if you
open a support ticket and your problem is malware, it is one of the programs
(the first program, I think) the techs will recommend to clean the
infection.

Your sociopathic behavior causes you to be shunned by anyone with even half
a brain, over and over again. I'm amazed that you are unable to learn from
experience.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to
be taken seriously. Hubert H. Humphrey