Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?

[Dustin Cook]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
news:hrfemu0i3o@news2.newsguy.com:

> From: "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk>
>
>
>| So now we are in a situation where someone (drdos) has posted
>| information on a well known technical forum saying one thing .......
>| and Mr David H Lipman (whoever he may *really* be!) making a post on
>| Usenet groups claiming that the original poster is wrong.
>
>| Take a step outside the box, David.
>
>| How could anyone simply 'visiting' these groups have any notion of
>| who is actually telling the truth?
>
>| I am /inclined/ to believe what *you* say - but there is no
>| supporting evidence to that effect - is there?
>
>| Is it reasonable for readers to accept that, as you have made no
>| disparaging comment to the contrary, that "Most wiping, erasing,
>| formatting, and partitioning tools will not overwrite logical bad
>| sectors on the Disk, leaving the Rootkits and their accompanying
>| payload of malware behind and still active."?
>
>| If so, what action would one recommend one takes before reinstalling
>| an operating system on a previously used disk - Darik's Boot and
>| Nuke?
>| http://download.cnet.com/Darik-s-Boo...d-DVD/3000-209
>| 4_4-10151762.html
>
>| Or, maybe FDISK will do? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/255867
>
>| Or does one simply assume that one's disk is Rootkit free and simply
>| use a Windows set-up disk and the in-built formatting facility?
>
>| --
>| Dave
>
> Show us *any* malware in the wild that; infects or resides within
> the; BIOS, Motherboard or Video-card.

And evidently, has some sort of universal translator for the code
differences found between them all.

> **And I do not mean some engineer in lab environment who found he
> could introduce malware into the BIOS, Motherboard or Video-card.

I would prefer it further if said engineer was able to demostrate
operational code instead of a storage site for potentially malicious code
which will never get run control; and thus, remain quite... harmless.

> There is not taking a step outside the box. This is the reality.
> There is NO malware that infects or resides within the; BIOS,
> Motherboard or Video-card.

Only few malware samples which would make an effort to corrupt the BIOS;
and it required very specific hardware in order to do it's deed. One size
doesn't fit all.




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

[Dustin Cook]

~BD~ <BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in
news:_uSdnT-CVv_jJ0LWnZ2dnUVZ7oidnZ2d@bt.com:

> Jenn wrote:
>
>>
>> I've seen the image.. it's not porn. It's silly Easter fun. I
>> wouldn't put it on a ng that kids were on.. but I'm guessing kids
>> don't use malwarebytes forum, either.
>>
>>
>
> I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in no way
> pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not* intended to be
> offensive.
>
> It was also in the *Honorary Members* group which is not, as far as
> I'm aware, accessible by the general public or children.

Honorary members was accessable to anyone who gained 50 posts or more.

> Maybe that point will be acknowledged. What odds on that?

Not much of a point really; as the general public is more than able to
gain entry to the forum; once they create 50 posts

> FYI - Malwarebytes is much sharper than Annexcafe - they *have*
> identified me and blocked my registration under my 'new' posting name

That is because you were dishonest, Dave. Your banning was an indication
that they didn't want you on their site. You evaded it by creating a new
userID. Did you think you could do that and actually get away with it?
the forum software isn't usenet; it's not limited by the same ways. IE:
ban evasion methods can be circumvented, as you have learned.

> Am I /really/ trying to hide, do you think? ;-)

You mistakenly think with the knowledge you posses that you could. I hate
to burst your bubble, or maybe I don't... but, you can't hide with the
limited knowledge you possess.

> I think Dustin said somewhere that the posting of the picture wasn't,
> in fact, the real reason for my exclusion - but I can't find that post
> of his right now. It will turn up, never fear!

I think when you bring that post up and read it, that isn't what was
said. Happy digging tho.

> Thanks for your comments, Jenn. Enjoy your day!

Jenn's comments don't apply in this instance. She will not be able to
restore your BD account at malwarebytes; and because of your dishonesty
in creating another userid, knowing full well you aren't welcome there...
is only going to make things more difficult for you to ever regain
permission to access the forum. The creation of the bogus account didn't
help you BD, it served to further prove what many of us think you are.




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

[Dustin Cook]

"Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
news:hrnl78$i8k$1@news.eternal-september.org:

> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D6CA90C9596CHHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247.. .
>> ~BD~ <BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in news:uf6dnfDt-
>> LfgU0DWnZ2dnUVZ8tidnZ2d@bt.com:
>>
>>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>>> ~BD~<BoaterDave@hotmail.co.ukk> wrote in
>>>> news:etmdnSAlabunKkTWnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@bt.com:
>>>>
>>>>> OK - I'm convinced at last.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mbam *is* a 100% safe application!
>>>>> **********************************
>>>>>
>>>>> See post number 3 - here:-
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php...&hl=Malwarebyt
>>>>> es
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yay! Thank God...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wrote to Malwarebytes and apologised, btw.
>>>
>>> Whilst I can (and have) registered again under another name, I'd
>>> prefer to have my ban rescinded and revert to being BD.
>>>
>>> How would you feel about putting in a good word for me, Dustin?
>
>
>> Are you smoking crack or heavily drinking? You just told me you
>> forged yourself a new identity to evade the BAN previously placed on
>> you, and then you want me to put in a good word for you? Laughable,
>> frakking laughable. You lack honor and disipline.
>>
>
> I'm thinking you're exaggerating quite alot, Dustin. Anyone can
> register under any name on any group. Dave just told you he
> re-registered. He didn't have to tell you or anyone and could be a
> member in good standing under any other username and no one would
> know... but he TOLD you.

Yes, Jenn. Anyone can re-register under any name in any group. When one
chooses to do so, knowing full well he is banned (which is why he's
creating another account in the first place) does *not* in any way show
good intentions, nor respect of any sort towards the forum admins.

If anything, it further justifies the initial ban that was set on his
account.

Further, He wouldn't have to tell me or anyone else he did this. As the
forum admins do audit for security purposes on occasion; his new userid
along with IP would be flagged as belonging to a now banned userID. Ie:
he would be caught eventually.

Clearly you know little about the options available to someone, should
they wish to use them.




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

[Dustin Cook]

~BD~ <BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in
news:_uSdnT-CVv_jJ0LWnZ2dnUVZ7oidnZ2d@bt.com:

> Jenn wrote:
>
>>
>> I've seen the image.. it's not porn. It's silly Easter fun. I
>> wouldn't put it on a ng that kids were on.. but I'm guessing kids
>> don't use malwarebytes forum, either.
>>
>>
>
> I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in no way
> pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not* intended to be
> offensive.

At the end of the day, it does not matter. You were given several
chances, BD. You can cry foul until your blue in the face. Your ban won't
be lifted anytime soon. You had a better chance of eventually getting it
lifted if you hadn't of gone around the ban in the first place by
creating a new account.

If you keep doing that annoying stuff, you could find yourself withen
violation of your own ISP rules; I'm sure they have something about
accessing equipment and sites without permission. And you lost the
permission when your first account was banned. The second created account
would technically be tresspass.

> Maybe that point will be acknowledged. What odds on that?

You defeated the entire point and any possible restoration of your
original account by creating another fake ID.

> FYI - Malwarebytes is much sharper than Annexcafe - they *have*
> identified me and blocked my registration under my 'new' posting name

Indeed. you realize, if they wanted to be an annoyance for you, they
could rightfully report to your isp of tresspass. I don't think they'd
take that route tho, unless you continue creating fake accounts.

However, with that said, if you were a user on my ftp or irc servers here
and I banned you; and you evaded it more than say once, I would contact
your ISP for unauthorized access as a SysOp.

In fact, as Jenn is a friend of yours and has prior SysOp experience on
MSn forums; I'd recommend you consult with her about possible actions
that could be taken against you, should you desire to continue creating
bogus accounts.

And BD, just so you know, using another email address for yet another
account signup isn't going to keep you hidden for long. At some point, an
audit will be performed and like this last time, your fake account(s)
will show up.

Malwarebytes is in the security business BD, don't mistake them for
hobbyist forum admins like Jenn.

..
>
> ... which was *Beady* and using my original (and current) email
> address!
>
> Am I /really/ trying to hide, do you think? ;-)

If you think that's what gave you away, then you need to do some
research.



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

[Dustin Cook]

"Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
news:hrnl78$i8k$1@news.eternal-september.org:

> "Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D6CA90C9596CHHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247.. .
>> ~BD~ <BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in news:uf6dnfDt-
>> LfgU0DWnZ2dnUVZ8tidnZ2d@bt.com:
>>
>>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>>> ~BD~<BoaterDave@hotmail.co.ukk> wrote in
>>>> news:etmdnSAlabunKkTWnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@bt.com:
>>>>
>>>>> OK - I'm convinced at last.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mbam *is* a 100% safe application!
>>>>> **********************************
>>>>>
>>>>> See post number 3 - here:-
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php...&hl=Malwarebyt
>>>>> es
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yay! Thank God...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wrote to Malwarebytes and apologised, btw.
>>>
>>> Whilst I can (and have) registered again under another name, I'd
>>> prefer to have my ban rescinded and revert to being BD.
>>>
>>> How would you feel about putting in a good word for me, Dustin?
>
>
>> Are you smoking crack or heavily drinking? You just told me you
>> forged yourself a new identity to evade the BAN previously placed on
>> you, and then you want me to put in a good word for you? Laughable,
>> frakking laughable. You lack honor and disipline.
>>
>
> I'm thinking you're exaggerating quite alot, Dustin. Anyone can
> register under any name on any group. Dave just told you he
> re-registered. He didn't have to tell you or anyone and could be a
> member in good standing under any other username and no one would
> know... but he TOLD you.

I disagree, Jenn. Anyone can register with any name the person desires,
so long as the follow the forum rules. Having an ID banned and creating
anotherone does not follow the rules; and it can result in tresspass
complaints to his service provider. The fact he was banned negated his
privledges on that site. Accessing that site or any other is a privledge,
not a right and the site admins do have options.

Secondly, He didn't have to tell me anything about creating a new user
account. The site is routely checked to ensure security is being
maintained. His new account would have been flagged using any number of
criteria. I'm not going to get into specifics of how it works, but to
assume he or anyone else can create a new ID after losing another one; is
foolish and somewhat arrogant. Not to mention, highly incorrect. You do
not have anonymity on the internet, you have a false sense of it instead.

The fact he had to register under another name because the admins didn't
want him having an account there is actually a form of digital criminal
tresspass.


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

[Dustin Cook]

"Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
news:hrnm1m$l3s$2@news.eternal-september.org:

> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
> news:hrks1d0a7j@news5.newsguy.com...
>> From: "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk>
>>
>>
>> | I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in no
>> | way pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not* intended to
>> | be offensive.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?act=boardrules
>>
>> Terms of Use:
>>
>> "You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous,
>> hateful, threatening,
>> sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any
>> applicable laws. In addition
>> you will not engage in any sort of spamming, whether it is comment
>> spam (injecting a
>> comment into a thread for the purpose of placing a link back to a
>> website offering the
>> same services offered here; or services totally unrelated to this
>> website), the use of
>> signature links deemed to be for the sole purpose of increasing web
>> traffic to a site of
>> interest by the member, or any combination of those two examples.
>> This includes the
>> Personal Message feature."
>>
>>
>
>
> so whats your point? The image is not any of that.

The image is a front nudie view of a woman. This could fall under obsene
and sexually-oriented. More importantly, the forum posts are at
moderators discretion. Obviously, they found it offensive and eventually
did terminate his account.

The fact he has now gone and created another account; which he did get
caught:

Message-ID: <_uSdnT-CVv_jJ0LWnZ2dnUVZ7oidnZ2d@bt.com>

FYI - Malwarebytes is much sharper than Annexcafe - they *have*
identified me and blocked my registration under my 'new' posting name ..

I believe, Jenn, creating another account to evade a BAN set by an
administrator is also against the terms of service.

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

[Dustin Cook]

~BD~ <BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in
news:y-6dnSfb-asv-kDWnZ2dnUVZ8oSdnZ2d@bt.com:

> I am *so* disappointed!

Heh, well; life is full of disappointments. Best you learn that.

>> I know that mbam isn't 100% safe any moreso than my hand sanitizer
>> kills 100% of all germs. (it claims 99.?% instead). It's proven math
>> on these.
>
> Your English corrected! <big smile!>

I have made a small effort to double check my grammar.

> I've no real idea about setting up auto monitoring - I read
> *everything!*

I doubt that. And even if you do read everything, you sure don't
comprehend alot of it.

> Read here, on your home territory!
> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...t=20&p=27599&#
> entry27599

I'm not really interested in an old thread; and that forum is not my home
terrority. I claim no home territory.

> I'd still like us to work together, Dustin!

Until you can come to grasp with reality and change your methods of
"truth" seeking, I am unwilling to work with you on any project.


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

[~BD~]

Dustin Cook wrote:
> ~BD~<BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in
> news:_uSdnT-CVv_jJ0LWnZ2dnUVZ7oidnZ2d@bt.com:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've seen the image.. it's not porn. It's silly Easter fun. I
>>> wouldn't put it on a ng that kids were on.. but I'm guessing kids
>>> don't use malwarebytes forum, either.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in no way
>> pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not* intended to be
>> offensive.
>>
>> It was also in the *Honorary Members* group which is not, as far as
>> I'm aware, accessible by the general public or children.
>
> Honorary members was accessible to anyone who gained 50 posts or more.

>> Maybe that point will be acknowledged. What odds on that?
>
> Not much of a point really; as the general public is more than able to
> gain entry to the forum; once they create 50 posts

Indeed. Stats please. Just how many children have made 50 posts or more?

>> FYI - Malwarebytes is much sharper than Annexcafe - they *have*
>> identified me and blocked my registration under my 'new' posting name
>
> That is because you were dishonest, Dave. Your banning was an indication
> that they didn't want you on their site. You evaded it by creating a new
> userID. Did you think you could do that and actually get away with it?
> the forum software isn't usenet; it's not limited by the same ways. IE:
> ban evasion methods can be circumvented, as you have learned.
>
>> Am I /really/ trying to hide, do you think? ;-)
>
> You mistakenly think with the knowledge you posses that you could. I hate
> to burst your bubble, or maybe I don't... but, you can't hide with the
> limited knowledge you possess.

What *you* don't understand, Dustin, is that I didn't TRY to hide. I
even *told* you what I had done! All you have done now is drawn
attention to the fact that the Malwarebytes operation may *not* be what
it purports to be. I am no threat to anyone - my role has been to try to
identify those who may be misusing the Internet.

>> I think Dustin said somewhere that the posting of the picture wasn't,
>> in fact, the real reason for my exclusion - but I can't find that post
>> of his right now. It will turn up, never fear!
>
> I think when you bring that post up and read it, that isn't what was
> said. Happy digging tho.


As you know already, I found it on Scorched-Earth, viz:

>
> Path: border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!fe ed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.twe aknews.nl!209.197.12.242.MISMATCH!nx01.iad01.newsh osting.com!209.197.12.246.MISMATCH!nx02.iad01.news hosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH! npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe07.iad.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.politics.scorched-earth
Subject: Re: Yer 'tis!
From: Dustin Cook <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com>
References: <hqv525$s1p$1@news.eternal-september.org>
<Xns9D64C09F580B1HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250>
<hr0q7g$8c1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
<Xns9D65802D0CF42HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250>
<hr1r5v$npk$1@news.eternal-september.org>
<Xns9D658398BADC3HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.247>
<hr1tco$557$1@news.eternal-september.org>
<Xns9D665CC548D2HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250>
<FJKdnVUbEbR2X0LWnZ2dnUVZ8sqdnZ2d@bt.com>
Organization: Core Technologies
Message-ID: <Xns9D6E21FA03280HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-Face:
")a1c1@v4695TOAAGDV"2*Q?\^40C9=M@Fw'c:YhY])Sb=T`-ev$|P|4Kff_BGW@l:=$o}Ivdx{blP|(XC-zAtj&8NNuo3Ie[v{NUwjU9Bf>sb*ylTx=^QUWZ|z\=w>zy<!.+?7@yh&_[]A?j_\OV-Rf7+Wv3r3.!>eQ=2pWPz5M%]9-UrUud}+
Lines: 35
NNTP-Posting-Host: bhjljdinioecadnmmfchhmacfpkdlkkf
X-Complaints-To: abuse@charter.net
X-Trace:
meohkjfdkiefkjamphkbdkgdnpdboliblfphkefaoffkbcbcbh jljdinioecadnmkkjjlojnohpblhimglblmledfcglicpdkgpe cckinfcopnaaikgckelplmkalecpbgjklipccefckbgb
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 07:12:59 UTC
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 07:12:59 GMT
Bytes: 3012
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.politics.scorched-earth:30924

~BD~ <BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk> wrote in
news:FJKdnVUbEbR2X0LWnZ2dnUVZ8sqdnZ2d@bt.com:

> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> Anyways, I have maintained all along that his nudie pic wasn't what
>> got him banned on it's own. It sure didn't help, it was the final
>> aspect, but *it wasn't what caused it*.
>
> I do wish I had a better memory!

Me too. Notice, the post of mine doesn't say "wasn't the real reason";
that's something *you* made up when you posted I'd said that.

> So - what is the *real* reason BD has been banned from Malwarebytes?

Several reasons. One, the comments on the blog, strike 1; unfounded
potentially harmful claims you left on the blog, actually. Posting a
nudie pic as an easter present to me, strike 2. Having the pic deleted,
told you had to have known that wasn't okay, and then posting it again;
strike 3. Result: your account was banned.

You have since taken it upon yourself to create a new account; knowing
you are not welcome (hence: banned). That account has also been banned.

This is not how you re-establish peaceful dialogue and get a ban lifted.
It's how you take a ban and make it permanent instead. You have much to
learn about the internet BD, and evidently; how not to treat people.

************************************************** ******************

Thank you for your comments, Dustin.

For other readers, this is what seems to have upset the apple-cart:-


I have been researching malware for over four years now (as a user, not
a guru!) and I now wonder how sure one can be that Malwarebytes is run
by /good/ guys.

What a super ruse it would be - to clear a machine of everyone else's
'nasties' but then, perhaps, leave their own package installed on the
user's machine. No one would ever suspect, would they?

Cybercrime has risen exponentially since Malwarebytes was first founded
in 2004.

See: http://www.malwarebytes.org/about.php

It's probably just a coincidence, eh?!! ;-)

Interestingly, Wikipedia says the launch of Malwarebytes was in January
2008.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?bl...57873401&pli=1

--
Dave - Fear not - the truth *will* out!

[~BD~]

Dustin Cook wrote:
> because the admins didn't
> want him having an account there

Dustin - it's comments like that which *feed* my curiosity!

Just *why* don't the 'admins' want me having an account there?

I'd been there a long time and caused no trouble at all. I couldn't
really care less whether or not I'm officially allowed to participate;
if I wish to do I don't believe they'd be able to identify me.

That's by the bye, the more interesting thing is the upset my comment
seems to have had. If everything was kosher not an eyebrow would have
been raised I'm sure.

I remember Giant being bought by Microsoft
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/p...16GIANTPR.mspx

There was no Malwarebytes back then.

Out of nowhere they came, as if by magic!

There is *still* no snail-mail postal address or contact telephone
number (that I can find) - essential attributes, I've been advised, if a
business seeks total acceptance.

http://www.malwarebytes.org/about.php

I have read all about the partnership with Sunbelt btw.

http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Press/Releases/?id=346

**

Another item which attracted my interest some long time ago was the
purchase procedure:

"This order process is conducted by our online reseller cleverbridge AG.
Payment processing and order fulfillment are done by cleverbridge AG,
Brabanter Str. 2-4, 50674 Cologne, Germany."

Why? Because they are charging VAT at 19% instead of the 17.5%
applicable in the UK.

https://store.malwarebytes.org/342/?...out&cart=29945

Tell me why they chose to use a German operation when currently based in
San Jose, CA., and when Malwarebytes is an Illinois corporation.

OK - it's an Internet company. I know! Forget that. ;-)

--
Dave - I *am* aware of what info I give away: http://browserreport.com/

[Bullwinkle]

Be careful, her ass is so large you can sit a beer
on top of it and it will not fall off when she waddles.

If she sits on you you are a goner.


"JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:LeadncBBJ_dVGELWnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@posted.grand ecom...
Jenn wrote:
> "JD"<JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:VOidnRP-lLfWp0PWnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@posted.grandecom...
>> David H. Lipman wrote:
>>> From: "JD"<JD@example.invalid>
>>>
>>> | David H. Lipman wrote:
>>>>> From: "~BD~"<BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk>
>>>
>>>>> | sexually-oriented
>>>
>>>>> | **
>>>
>>>>> | I've apologised for posting what was seen as as 'offending' picture.
>>>>> IMO
>>>>> | rules should allow for mistakes being made inadvertently, not be
>>>>> used
>>>>> to
>>>>> | banish folk forever! That makes no sense at all.
>>>
>>>>> You were given two chances.
>>>
>>>
>>> | Each time you reply, he comes back with more ignorant bs. He's a fool
>>> | asking for others to not be foolish. He seeks the real truth but he
>>> | speaks in lies. If you stop replying to boater Dave maybe he'll go
>>> away.
>>> | Maybe. God I hope so. Probably not.
>>>
>>> | But it's worth a try. 8-)
>>>
>>> Thank you. You are right.
>>> I was about to reply but, I read this post and canceled the post.
>>>
>
>
> silly person ... nothing is going to happen ... people will pretend to not
> read daves posts.. and then ya'll will begin responding because that's
> what
> happens on ngs.

You ever heard the term "$hit for brains"?

You and boater Dave bring so little to this newsgroup. Yes, people
respond because they hope you will understand the nature of these
newsgroups but you won't. Hence the term $**** for brains.

Actually it would be an improvement if you had $hit for brains!

8-)

--
JD..