Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?

[Max Wachtel]

On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:25:53 -0400, Jenn <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote:

>
>
> "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.

I asked my wife what she thought of the image and she said that she "was
offended, it was vulgar and should not be on a public forum".
--
This post was created using Opera@USB: http://www.opera-usb.com
Virus Removal Instructions
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home
Max's Favorite Freeware
http://sites.google.com/site/keeping...clean/freeware
I'm Max Wachtel and I approve this message.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

Max Wachtel wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:25:53 -0400, Jenn
> <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "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.
>
> I asked my wife what she thought of the image and she said that
> she "was offended, it was vulgar and should not be on a public
> forum".

Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar."

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

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

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net>



| Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar."

| http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar

Everyone's caught up on the content. Is it vulgar ? Is it pornographic ? They are moot
points and they don't matter.
All that does matter is the Malwarebytes' AUP/ToS and BD violating the clause; "You agree
not to post ... sexually-oriented..."

http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...act=boardrules



--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net>
>
>
>
>> Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word
>> "vulgar."
>
>> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar
>
> Everyone's caught up on the content. Is it vulgar ? Is it
> pornographic ? They are moot points and they don't matter.
> All that does matter is the Malwarebytes' AUP/ToS and BD
> violating the clause; "You agree not to post ...
> sexually-oriented..."
>
> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...act=boardrules

They seem to have made a debate of whether or not breasts are
"sexually-oriented," given that breasts exist for the purpose of feeding
babies. That context matters is lost on them.

"Vulgar," on the other hand, covers a lot of territory.

The bottom line, however, is that the owner of a private forum is the net
equivalent to God: whatever he or she decides is unacceptable is...well,
unacceptable. I expect that if a forum owner does not like the way one
spells (for example), said owner is entitled to throw one the hell off,
without explanation.

Free speech does have limits, and those limits begin with private ownership.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

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

[Jenn]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:hsagh70t4j@news6.newsguy.com...
> From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net>
>
>
>
> | Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar."
>
> | http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar
>
> Everyone's caught up on the content. Is it vulgar ? Is it pornographic ?
> They are moot
> points and they don't matter.
> All that does matter is the Malwarebytes' AUP/ToS and BD violating the
> clause; "You agree
> not to post ... sexually-oriented..."
>
> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...act=boardrules
>
>


What do you mean by sexually-oriented?

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
>

[JD]

Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
> David H. Lipman wrote:
>> From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries"<rhondaleakirk@earthling.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word
>>> "vulgar."
>>
>>> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar
>>
>> Everyone's caught up on the content. Is it vulgar ? Is it
>> pornographic ? They are moot points and they don't matter.
>> All that does matter is the Malwarebytes' AUP/ToS and BD
>> violating the clause; "You agree not to post ...
>> sexually-oriented..."
>>
>> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...act=boardrules
>
> They seem to have made a debate of whether or not breasts are
> "sexually-oriented," given that breasts exist for the purpose of feeding
> babies. That context matters is lost on them.
>
> "Vulgar," on the other hand, covers a lot of territory.
>
> The bottom line, however, is that the owner of a private forum is the net
> equivalent to God: whatever he or she decides is unacceptable is...well,
> unacceptable. I expect that if a forum owner does not like the way one
> spells (for example), said owner is entitled to throw one the hell off,
> without explanation.
>
> Free speech does have limits, and those limits begin with private ownership.
>

Hey I've got a dead horse. Lets beat it to death and then go out and see
if we can beat it back to life so we can beat it some more. You can't
beat a dead horse unless you're in newsgroups. Then it's not like a sore
peter, which you can't beat.

And lets add another newsgroup to the post.

--
JD..

[Bullwinkle]

Certainly not you...Ugh!


"Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
news:hsaiis$t42$1@news.eternal-september.org...

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:hsagh70t4j@news6.newsguy.com...
> From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net>
>
>
>
> | Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar."
>
> | http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar
>
> Everyone's caught up on the content. Is it vulgar ? Is it pornographic ?
> They are moot
> points and they don't matter.
> All that does matter is the Malwarebytes' AUP/ToS and BD violating the
> clause; "You agree
> not to post ... sexually-oriented..."
>
> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...act=boardrules
>
>


What do you mean by sexually-oriented?

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
>

[James Egan]

On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries"
<rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote:

>Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar."
>
>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar


So if I wanted to express 0.5 as a vulgar fraction that would be
"feckin' point five"


Jim

[Max Wachtel]

On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
<rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote:

> Max Wachtel wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:25:53 -0400, Jenn
>> <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "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.
>>
>> I asked my wife what she thought of the image and she said that
>> she "was offended, it was vulgar and should not be on a public
>> forum".
>
> Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar."
>
> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar
>

one would think that living in the "bible belt" would cause one's morals
to be a little higher than those living in,let's say,Vegas?
--
This post was created using Opera@USB: http://www.opera-usb.com
Virus Removal Instructions
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home
Max's Favorite Freeware
http://sites.google.com/site/keeping...clean/freeware
I'm Max Wachtel and I approve this message.

[FromTheRafters]

"James Egan" <jegan@jegan.com> wrote in message
news:84te2vFsh0U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries"
> <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>>Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar."
>>
>>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar
>
>
> So if I wanted to express 0.5 as a vulgar fraction that would be
> "feckin' point five"

5/10, 6/12, 233/466, then get the lowest vulgar denominator...