Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway>

| 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?

She's an adult and you are acting like a teenager.

The content of the picture is unquestionably sexually oriented by US standards.

Test: Can you see that picture unobfuscated on a US television broadcast channel ?
Answer: no

/* Now stop trolling ! */



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

[Jenn]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway>
>
>> 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?
>
> She's an adult and you are acting like a teenager.
>
> The content of the picture is unquestionably sexually oriented by US
> standards.

No it's not ...

> Test: Can you see that picture unobfuscated on a US television
> broadcast channel ? Answer: no
>
> /* Now stop trolling ! */

The web is not US television. People keep saying the image is 1. sexually
oriented, and 2. vulgar.
........ define, if you can, at what point does any image become *sexually
oriented*.

You won't do it, nor will anyone else do it because it's a subjective
conclusion.


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Max Wachtel]

The point is that the mod thought the image was in violation and his
opinion is all that matters. BD was warned by the mod that the pic was
unacceptable and that is that. He was banned. End of story.
--
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.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

Max Wachtel wrote:
> The point is that the mod thought the image was in violation and
> his opinion is all that matters. BD was warned by the mod that
> the pic was unacceptable and that is that. He was banned. End of
> story.

This is an exceptionally complex concept--one too involved for her tiny
little brain to comprehend.

And she's a lousy troll, to boot.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

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

[Max Wachtel]

On Fri, 14 May 2010 2156 -0400, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
<rhondaleakirk@earthling.net> wrote:

> Max Wachtel wrote:
>> The point is that the mod thought the image was in violation and
>> his opinion is all that matters. BD was warned by the mod that
>> the pic was unacceptable and that is that. He was banned. End of
>> story.
>
> This is an exceptionally complex concept--one too involved for her tiny
> little brain to comprehend.
>

I'll try to use small words.
--
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.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Max Wachtel" <maxpro4u@hotmail.com>

| The point is that the mod thought the image was in violation and his
| opinion is all that matters. BD was warned by the mod that the pic was
| unacceptable and that is that. He was banned. End of story.


No, he received no warning. After the 1st post with the attached graphic, the post was
removed. After the 2cnd post, he was subsequently banned.

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

[~BD~]

----- Original Message -----
From: "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net>
Newsgroups:
alt.privacy.spyware,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.vir us
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 4:21 AM
Subject: Re: Is MBAM a 100% safe application?


> From: "Max Wachtel" <maxpro4u@hotmail.com>
>
> | The point is that the mod thought the image was in violation and his
> | opinion is all that matters. BD was warned by the mod that the pic
> was
> | unacceptable and that is that. He was banned. End of story.
>
>
> No, he received no warning.

Ah! The truth at last! I received NO warning.

> After the 1st post with the attached graphic, the post was
> removed.

When I checked to make sure it was there - it wasn't. I know full well
that
things go awry when computing, so I simply re-posted the image NOT
intending
to cause offense - it was meant to be a bit of fun!

> After the 2cnd post, he was subsequently banned.

Indeed I was. A silly fit of pique in my opinion - unless there is more
to
this incident than meets the eye.

A question for David Lipman - please advise - just *how* do you know
that
this is an accurate picture of what happened? Dustin Cook ( a
Malwarebytes
employee?) said a while ago, incorrectly, that a warning *was* issued!
Folk
reading here need to know whose word they can trust!

--
Dave BD

[Bullwinkle]

So call off your fatass pig nose lap dog troll.


"~BD~" <BoaterDave@nospam~@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hslhqe$muv$1@news.eternal-september.org...



--
Dave BD

[David H. Lipman]

From: "~BD~" <BoaterDave@nospam~@hotmail.co.uk>


| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net>
| Newsgroups:
| alt.privacy.spyware,alt.comp.anti-virus,alt.comp.virus,microsoft.public.security.vir us
| Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 4:21 AM
| Subject: Re: Is MBAM a 100% safe application?


>> From: "Max Wachtel" <maxpro4u@hotmail.com>

>> | The point is that the mod thought the image was in violation and his
>> | opinion is all that matters. BD was warned by the mod that the pic
>> was
>> | unacceptable and that is that. He was banned. End of story.


>> No, he received no warning.

| Ah! The truth at last! I received NO warning.

>> After the 1st post with the attached graphic, the post was
>> removed.

| When I checked to make sure it was there - it wasn't. I know full well
| that
| things go awry when computing, so I simply re-posted the image NOT
| intending
| to cause offense - it was meant to be a bit of fun!

>> After the 2cnd post, he was subsequently banned.

| Indeed I was. A silly fit of pique in my opinion - unless there is more
| to
| this incident than meets the eye.

| A question for David Lipman - please advise - just *how* do you know
| that
| this is an accurate picture of what happened? Dustin Cook ( a
| Malwarebytes
| employee?) said a while ago, incorrectly, that a warning *was* issued!
| Folk
| reading here need to know whose word they can trust!


People know they can't trust YOU !~

It doesn't matter the content of the picture and it doesn't matter that you didn't receive
a warning.

Both are moot points just READ the AUP/ToS that YOU agreed to. Nothing in there states
about and form of warning.

All that matters is that you violated the AUP/ToS you agreed to and thus you were ToS'd.

End of Story !

--
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: "Max Wachtel" <maxpro4u@hotmail.com>
>
>> The point is that the mod thought the image was in violation and
>> his opinion is all that matters. BD was warned by the mod that
>> the pic was unacceptable and that is that. He was banned. End of
>> story.
>
>
> No, he received no warning. After the 1st post with the attached
> graphic, the post was removed.

For a normally intelligent person, the removal of the post would be warning
enough.

> After the 2cnd post, he was subsequently banned.

He's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

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