Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?

[Jenn]

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.

The entire scenario is subjective ... sooo.. since some people believe one
particular image is sexually oriented and it was justified to be removed...
I'd like to know what about the image qualified it to be sexually oriented.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

Jenn wrote:
> 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.
>
> The entire scenario is subjective ... sooo.. since some people
> believe one particular image is sexually oriented and it was
> justified to be removed... I'd like to know what about the image
> qualified it to be sexually oriented.

The image is vulgar, and you're a moron.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

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

[JD]

Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> The entire scenario is subjective ... sooo.. since some people
>> believe one particular image is sexually oriented and it was
>> justified to be removed... I'd like to know what about the image
>> qualified it to be sexually oriented.
>
> The image is vulgar, and you're a moron.
>

Have 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."

As you used the term, this "moron" keeps asking why a picture of a
woman's breasts is "sexually oriented." It's beyond a normal person why
the picture in question was posted in a help forum and yet the stick
keeps asking for clarification.

Again the term "dumb as 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-)

God I know it's hard to not keep throwing the stick to the neighbor's
dog but every time you throw the stick, it just comes back, dumber than
before.

--
JD..

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

JD wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The entire scenario is subjective ... sooo.. since some people
>>> believe one particular image is sexually oriented and it was
>>> justified to be removed... I'd like to know what about the image
>>> qualified it to be sexually oriented.
>>
>> The image is vulgar, and you're a moron.
>>
>
> Have 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."
>
> As you used the term, this "moron" keeps asking why a picture of a
> woman's breasts is "sexually oriented." It's beyond a normal
> person why the picture in question was posted in a help forum and
> yet the stick keeps asking for clarification.
>
> Again the term "dumb as 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-)
>
> God I know it's hard to not keep throwing the stick to the
> neighbor's dog but every time you throw the stick, it just comes
> back, dumber than before.

It's a nice parable, but please be careful not to bust the BI.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

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

[Jenn]

Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>> James Morrow wrote:

>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The entire scenario is subjective ... sooo.. since some people
>> believe one particular image is sexually oriented and it was
>> justified to be removed... I'd like to know what about the image
>> qualified it to be sexually oriented.
>
> The image is vulgar, and you're a moron.

By who's definition? No one can say, or is willing to say what makes the
image either vulgar or sexually oriented. We don't live in Victorian times,
so what used to be vulgar is not anymore. It would seem that some people
have become prudes, which is quite surprising in this day we live in.

Now.. define when an image becomes vulgar or sexually oriented. As adults,
is this such a difficult thing to do?


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Jenn]

JD wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:

> Again the term "dumb as 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-)
>
> God I know it's hard to not keep throwing the stick to the neighbor's
> dog but every time you throw the stick, it just comes back, dumber
> than before.

oh please, jd ... if you can't explain to anyone how you define what is
vulgar or sexually oriented, how can you expect there to be any standard to
judge an image?

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

Jenn wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> James Morrow wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The entire scenario is subjective ... sooo.. since some people
>>> believe one particular image is sexually oriented and it was
>>> justified to be removed... I'd like to know what about the image
>>> qualified it to be sexually oriented.
>>
>> The image is vulgar, and you're a moron.
>
> By who's definition? No one can say, or is willing to say what
> makes the image either vulgar or sexually oriented. We don't
> live in Victorian times, so what used to be vulgar is not
> anymore. It would seem that some people have become prudes,
> which is quite surprising in this day we live in.
> Now.. define when an image becomes vulgar or sexually oriented. As adults,
> is this such a difficult thing to do?

**** off and die.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

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

[Bullwinkle]

Go read some court decisions.

This has beed defined and answered several times.


"Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
news:hsiijg$n63$1@news.eternal-september.org...
By who's definition? No one can say,


Now.. define when an image becomes vulgar or sexually oriented.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Jenn]

Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>> James Morrow wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The entire scenario is subjective ... sooo.. since some people
>>>> believe one particular image is sexually oriented and it was
>>>> justified to be removed... I'd like to know what about the image
>>>> qualified it to be sexually oriented.
>>>
>>> The image is vulgar, and you're a moron.
>>
>> By who's definition? No one can say, or is willing to say what
>> makes the image either vulgar or sexually oriented. We don't
>> live in Victorian times, so what used to be vulgar is not
>> anymore. It would seem that some people have become prudes,
>> which is quite surprising in this day we live in.
>> Now.. define when an image becomes vulgar or sexually oriented. As
>> adults, is this such a difficult thing to do?
>
> **** off and die.

Interesting response.. are you a teen ager? I'm guessing 14 yrs old?

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

[Bullwinkle]

Coming from a fat assed pig nosed *****
who goes to the UK to almost get ****ed
means nada.(Even the Transgendered BD would not **** you)

When your ole man is out late do you think he thinks,
"wish I was home ****ing the cow"?

He does not!


"Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in message
news:hsjs7d$a7l$1@news.eternal-september.org...
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
> Jenn wrote:
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>> James Morrow wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The entire scenario is subjective ... sooo.. since some people
>>>> believe one particular image is sexually oriented and it was
>>>> justified to be removed... I'd like to know what about the image
>>>> qualified it to be sexually oriented.
>>>
>>> The image is vulgar, and you're a moron.
>>
>> By who's definition? No one can say, or is willing to say what
>> makes the image either vulgar or sexually oriented. We don't
>> live in Victorian times, so what used to be vulgar is not
>> anymore. It would seem that some people have become prudes,
>> which is quite surprising in this day we live in.
>> Now.. define when an image becomes vulgar or sexually oriented. As
>> adults, is this such a difficult thing to do?
>
> **** off and die.

Interesting response.. are you a teen ager? I'm guessing 14 yrs old?

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/