Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?

[JD]

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.
>
>

Thank you. Lets see what happens.

--
JD..

[~BD~]

Toxic wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 00:58:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>
>> Here is the picture I posted. http://tinypic.com/r/ziu8lk/5
>>
>> I'd be very interested to learn how many folk /here/ consider this image
>> to be 'porn' rather than just a bit of fun.
>
>
> Interesting that an image of the very font of neonatal sustenance,
> is considered taboo yet as the most horrific depictions of carnage
> and violence are routinely celebrated.


I guess you were in no way offended. That's good!

Thanks for posting.

BD

[Bullwinkle]

As a liberal from the UK bd and his lapdogs,think rules apply to others
and not them.


"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:hrl49h0jkk@news5.newsguy.com...
From: "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk>



>> You lack honor and discipline.

| No - I don't.

Yes - You do!

| In fact, the 'Management' at Malwarebytes, by choosing not to
| correspond, have shown very poor management skills.

The management skills of Malwarewarebytes is excellent as they properly and
judiciously
enforced the rules YOU agreed to abide by.

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."



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

[PajaP]

On Mon, 03 May 2010 00:58:00 +0100, ~BD~ <BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk>
wrote:

>Here is the picture I posted. http://tinypic.com/r/ziu8lk/5
>
>I'd be very interested to learn how many folk /here/ consider this image
>to be 'porn' rather than just a bit of fun.

It is not porn at all.

[~BD~]

PajaP wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 00:58:00 +0100, ~BD~<BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Here is the picture I posted. http://tinypic.com/r/ziu8lk/5
>>
>> I'd be very interested to learn how many folk /here/ consider this image
>> to be 'porn' rather than just a bit of fun.
>
> It is not porn at all.


Thanks for your view!

[Leythos]

In article <yIidnXGEzOJW8UPWnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@bt.com>,
BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk says...
>
> Toxic wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 May 2010 00:58:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Here is the picture I posted. http://tinypic.com/r/ziu8lk/5
> >>
> >> I'd be very interested to learn how many folk /here/ consider this image
> >> to be 'porn' rather than just a bit of fun.
> >
> >
> > Interesting that an image of the very font of neonatal sustenance,
> > is considered taboo yet as the most horrific depictions of carnage
> > and violence are routinely celebrated.

That image does not belong linked in a public group where underage
people are known to visit. It's an ADULT content image. It certainly
does not belong posted on a technical support group/forum.

I'm not offended, but I'm an old fart. I would terminate your account
and BAN your IP if you had posted that to one of my support forums or
one of the non-profit groups support forums I help maintain.

Posting that image to a support group is insulting to the board owners
and users.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

[~BD~]

Leythos wrote:
> In article<yIidnXGEzOJW8UPWnZ2dnUVZ8uudnZ2d@bt.com>,
> BoaterDave@hotmail..co.uk says...
>>
>> Toxic wrote:
>>> On Mon, 03 May 2010 00:58:00 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Here is the picture I posted. http://tinypic.com/r/ziu8lk/5
>>>>
>>>> I'd be very interested to learn how many folk /here/ consider this image
>>>> to be 'porn' rather than just a bit of fun.
>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting that an image of the very font of neonatal sustenance,
>>> is considered taboo yet as the most horrific depictions of carnage
>>> and violence are routinely celebrated.
>
> That image does not belong linked in a public group where underage
> people are known to visit. It's an ADULT content image. It certainly
> does not belong posted on a technical support group/forum.
>
> I'm not offended, but I'm an old fart. I would terminate your account
> and BAN your IP if you had posted that to one of my support forums or
> one of the non-profit groups support forums I help maintain.
>
> Posting that image to a support group is insulting to the board owners
> and users.
>

Your comments are duly noted.

Thank you.

[Jenn]

"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...l=Malwarebytes
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Jenn]

"~BD~" <BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wMadnaLf6IwUjEPWnZ2dnUVZ8uydnZ2d@bt.com...
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> ~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...l=Malwarebytes
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Just testing your reaction, Dustin! ;-)
>
> I've *forged* nothing - I've broken no laws either.
>
> Here is the picture I posted. http://tinypic.com/r/ziu8lk/5
>
> I'd be very interested to learn how many folk /here/ consider this image
> to be 'porn' rather than just a bit of fun.

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.


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Jenn]

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:hrl6dg0lut@news5.newsguy.com...
> 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.
>


Why not give him 5 chances .. or 6 chances.. or 4 chances?? Why do you stop
at 2 chances especially when I saw no warning in the thread Dustin posted?
Ya'll are being a bit of a hard case over a silly thing.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)