Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?

[James Morrow]

In article <hsaiis$t42$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
>
> "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?
>
>

We are not discussing milk cows. Yes, this is sexually orientated. Any
other conclusion is utterly unsupportable.

--
James E. Morrow
Email to: jamesemorrow@email.com

[Jenn]

James Morrow wrote:
> In article <hsaiis$t42$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
>>
>> "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?
>>
>>
>
> We are not discussing milk cows. Yes, this is sexually orientated. Any
> other conclusion is utterly unsupportable.

Why is the image considered to be sexually oriented?
Also, why is the sigtag image the other poster on malwarebytes not
considered to be sexually oriented. They are very similar.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[James Egan]

On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:12:29 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
<erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

>> 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...
>

It was supposed to be a joke.


Jim

[Jenn]

Max Wachtel wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

>>
>> 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?

I'm also a Christian... what's that have to do with this image you are
discussing?

Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented". Do you mean
an image that turns people on? What do you mean because there are many
images that could fall into either category but are not removed from groups
that consider themselves to be family oriented.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

[Heather]

"James Egan" <jegan@jegan.com> wrote in message
news:84vd3nFnpqU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:12:29 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>> 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...
>>
>
> It was supposed to be a joke.
>
And Rafters has an incredibly dry sense of humour and I took his reply as a
joke. (G) He is not your average American.........more like a Canuck or
Brit.....(joke)

[James Egan]

On Wed, 12 May 2010 14:03:54 -0400, "Heather" <lainie@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>
>"James Egan" <jegan@jegan.com> wrote in message
>news:84vd3nFnpqU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:12:29 -0400, "FromTheRafters"
>> <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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...
>>>
>>
>> It was supposed to be a joke.
>>
>And Rafters has an incredibly dry sense of humour and I took his reply as a
>joke. (G) He is not your average American.........more like a Canuck or
>Brit.....(joke)
>


Oh, sorry!. Way too deep for me. Not the first time he's done that
though.


Jim

[Max Wachtel]

On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:08:27 -0400, Jenn
<me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote:

> Max Wachtel wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
>
>>>
>>> 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?
>
> I'm also a Christian... what's that have to do with this image you are
> discussing?
>
> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented". Do you
> mean
> an image that turns people on? What do you mean because there are many
> images that could fall into either category but are not removed from
> groups
> that consider themselves to be family oriented.

BD got himself banned for the image in question. Most of the forums I
frequent would not have allowed it either.
--
This post was created using Opera: http://www.opera.com
Virus Removal Instructions
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home
Max's Favorite Freeware
http://sites.google.com/site/keeping...clean/freeware
I am Max Wachtel and I approve this message.

[Jenn]

Max Wachtel wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:08:27 -0400, Jenn
> <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote:
>
>> Max Wachtel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> I'm also a Christian... what's that have to do with this image you
>> are discussing?
>>
>> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented". Do you
>> mean
>> an image that turns people on? What do you mean because there are
>> many images that could fall into either category but are not removed
>> from groups
>> that consider themselves to be family oriented.
>
> BD got himself banned for the image in question. Most of the forums I
> frequent would not have allowed it either.

I'm aware of all that... no one can tell me what about that image makes it
sexually oriented. At what point does any image qualify as being sexually
oriented? Is it at the point it gets someone aroused? If that is true,
other images should be disallowed, too. Also, what about the image was
"vulgar"?? Do tell? I'd like an explanation.

Thus far, you and others have labeled the image as both vulgar and sexually
oriented so it was unsuitable for malwarebytes forum, yet NO ONE will
explain at what point an image becomes, either. It sounds like some
ambiguous determination based on a conclusion written on the wind.

So .. answer my questions above. If no one can answer then, the only
conclusions is that the image can't be either vulgar or sexually oriented.


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[James Morrow]

In article <hsd863$bai$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
> James Morrow wrote:
> > In article <hsaiis$t42$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
> >>
> >> "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?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > We are not discussing milk cows. Yes, this is sexually orientated. Any
> > other conclusion is utterly unsupportable.
>
> Why is the image considered to be sexually oriented?
> Also, why is the sigtag image the other poster on malwarebytes not
> considered to be sexually oriented. They are very similar.
>
>
That would a subjective judgement by myself only. But that is my
judgement. Your opinion my be different. The phrase "utterly
unsupportable' was intended to be in jest.

--
James E. Morrow
Email to: jamesemorrow@email.com

[JD]

James Morrow wrote:
> In article<hsd863$bai$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
>> James Morrow wrote:
>>> In article<hsaiis$t42$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
>>>>
>>>> "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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> We are not discussing milk cows. Yes, this is sexually orientated. Any
>>> other conclusion is utterly unsupportable.
>>
>> Why is the image considered to be sexually oriented?
>> Also, why is the sigtag image the other poster on malwarebytes not
>> considered to be sexually oriented. They are very similar.
>>
>>
> That would a subjective judgement by myself only. But that is my
> judgement. Your opinion my be different. The phrase "utterly
> unsupportable' was intended to be in jest.
>

How you ever tried to explain something to a stick? No matter what you
tell the stick, it will come back and ask basically the same question
over and over again. Every time you reply, the stick will reply.

Hence the term "dumb as a stick." You shouldn't have to explain that
"utterly unsupportable" was a joke. Unless you're talking to a stick.

Sometimes I throw a stick so my neighbor's dog will chase it. Sometimes
the dog returns the stick and expects me to throw it again. This really
has nothing to do with dumb as a stick but I do have experience with
sticks. 8-)

--
JD..