Re: Is MBAMMARIES is a 100% safe application?

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday>

| Peter Foldes wrote:
>> Jenn

>> You are beating a dead horse and aside from you having the last word
>> as you always do. let this subject go already. Sheeeesh


| Hey Peter ... Dave isn't a liar ... he told the truth that he didn't get a
| warning. Some people just want others to shut up because they don't want
| the truth come out. Dave is a good guy.

Bullsh!t !

If he was a "good guy" he wouldn't be trolling the news groups, he would not be siding
with a well documented code thief and liar, he would not have been ToS'd from Aumha.Net
and he would not have violated the ToS/AUP of Malwarebytes.

Now it is time for YOU to STFU.

Your continued trolling on the content of the picture and now about a "warning" are side
shows. They are moot points. The Malwarebytes' AUP/ToS doesn't state they isuse
warnings. It states "You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous,
hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented..." and "Engaging in any of the aforementioned
activities may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned...". There is NO
QUESTION as to the picture he posted as being "sexually-oriented". Your "good guy" thinks
he can do whatever he wants when he wants without scrutiny or conseqences.


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

[Peter Foldes]

Bull****. He was given the warning and he knew.When that picture and his post was
removed ,he knew it immediately. He had this happen before on another server. He is
just crying foul so as he can get sympathy. He is a Troll

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
news:hsnrls$vfl$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in
>
>
>>> When is any of those consider art, or simply funny? I'm guessing you
>>> believe the language you're using to describe something is what makes
>>> something vulgar. I'm asking about the image that was breasts
>>
>> The image was in good humour, but was clearly a titty shot; and thus
>> would be subject to censorship due to sexually oriented material. Your
>> the one who used Jerry Springer as an example. It's a very poor one
>> for your defense..
>
> On the contrary ... it shows how such images are no longer considered to be
> sexually oriented, but rather they are considered to be humorous, instead, just
> like what happens on that TV show.
>
>> Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is
>> banned, nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to
>> ask for outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with everyone
>> who doesn't see it your way is, utterly stupid.
>
> Actually, it hasn't been pointless. You've finally admitted that Dave wasn't
> given any warning about the image, and you've argued many a time that he WAS given
> a warning. It has proven that Dave is telling the truth... he usually says ...
> "the truth will out" .... it finally did.
>
>
>>> Because it shows the breasts? How much of a breast has to be
>>> revealed before it's considered to fall into the above categories?
>>> I am asking because that sigtag image that other fellow on your
>>> group is using
>>
>> malwarebytes is *not* my group. As I said, it's not a little hole in
>> the wall hobbyist site like yours and isn't subject to the same codes
>> of conduct as you are. IE: they have to tow a line that you don't. The
>> sigtag image you keep bringing up is a cartoon; and various opinions
>> have already been expressed that it's not sexually oriented and
>> doesn't violate any rules. You didn't like any of them tho, which is
>> why you keep bringing it up.
>
> The sigtag image is just as offensive as the image Dave posted. How many people
> would see that cartoon image and think.. "hmmmmmmm... that's sexually oriented ..
> I'm not joining that group.. it's supposed to be family oriented"... The cartoon
> image should also be removed because it's sexually oriented. Pass the word along.
>
>
>
>> Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is
>> banned, nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to
>> ask for outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with everyone
>> who doesn't see it your way is, utterly stupid.
>
> You just never know if a discussion like this will change anything or not.. do
> you? Hey.. you even finally dropped the argument that Dave was warned and
> admitted he wasn't warned. That's progress!
>
>>> shows nearly the same amount of breast. I just think ya'll call
>>> something vulgar or secually oriented indescriminately and don't
>>> include images like the sigtag image which could also fall into the
>>> sexuall oriented category, too.
>>
>> Well, again,
>>
>> Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is
>> banned, nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to
>> ask for outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with everyone
>> who doesn't see it your way is, utterly stupid.
>>
>> I hope you realize, your getting noplace.
>
> I have no destination. LOL haaaaaaahhahah funny..
>
> --
> Jenn (from Oklahoma)
>

[Bullwinkle]

No!!

They hang about her knees.


"Cody" <notever@msn.org> wrote in message
news:ZeednRXDws1i0XLWnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
Jenn said:

> Have you watched the Jerry Springer show recently? It seems to be some
> sort
> of a badge of honor for some females to do that very thing these days, so
> I'm guessing alot of people don't consider that to be "vulgar".


Show us YOUR Tits!!!

[Peter Foldes]

With a little detour over the bulge on the stomach

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Bullwinkle" <BDTJ@loa.mo> wrote in message news:4befee60@news.x-privat.org...
> No!!
>
> They hang about her knees.
>
>
> "Cody" <notever@msn.org> wrote in message
> news:ZeednRXDws1i0XLWnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> Jenn said:
>
>> Have you watched the Jerry Springer show recently? It seems to be some
>> sort
>> of a badge of honor for some females to do that very thing these days, so
>> I'm guessing alot of people don't consider that to be "vulgar".
>
>
> Show us YOUR Tits!!!
>

[Peter Foldes]

Chris (PC Butts)

You are also a pervert aside from a thief and a very deranged person

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:7e93ca5313332a6f7a91ab814a6644b3@dizum.com...
>
> "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote:
>>
>> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented".
>
> Show us your tits!
>

[Dustin Cook]

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

> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in
>
>
>>> When is any of those consider art, or simply funny? I'm guessing
>>> you believe the language you're using to describe something is what
>>> makes something vulgar. I'm asking about the image that was
>>> breasts
>>
>> The image was in good humour, but was clearly a titty shot; and thus
>> would be subject to censorship due to sexually oriented material.
>> Your the one who used Jerry Springer as an example. It's a very poor
>> one for your defense..
>
> On the contrary ... it shows how such images are no longer considered
> to be sexually oriented, but rather they are considered to be
> humorous, instead, just like what happens on that TV show.

What happens on that show is person a tries to beatup person b, they both
get caught and wrestled around. At no time do you see any titties, ass or
anything else on public cable. Instead, it's blurred out. So really,
Jerry Springer wasn't a good example.

> Actually, it hasn't been pointless. You've finally admitted that Dave
> wasn't given any warning about the image, and you've argued many a
> time that he WAS given a warning. It has proven that Dave is telling
> the truth... he usually says ... "the truth will out" .... it finally
> did.

Hmm, Depends on your point of view. Dave was not telling the truth about
me, and the fact that both of you put together don't have enough
functional brain matter to light a match is also, irrelevent.

The fact his picture was deleted is warning enough to most of us; aside
from you and BD that is. But your not going to twist anything to make it
sound like I set him up or anything else of the sort. I'll call you on it
each time you try, like you did here.

> The sigtag image is just as offensive as the image Dave posted. How
> many people would see that cartoon image and think.. "hmmmmmmm...
> that's sexually oriented .. I'm not joining that group.. it's supposed
> to be family oriented"... The cartoon image should also be removed
> because it's sexually oriented. Pass the word along.

They would just laugh as they have when you came to Dave's poor defense.
They don't find it sexually oriented, many others do not either. You have
no leg to stand on.

> You just never know if a discussion like this will change anything or
> not.. do you? Hey.. you even finally dropped the argument that Dave
> was warned and admitted he wasn't warned. That's progress!

As I said, your attempted to twist things aside, He was warned, when his
picture was deleted the first time. I'm sorry that Dave is the type of
person who needs it spelled out and sent via certified mail before it
makes sense.

>> Well, again,
>>
>> Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is
>> banned, nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to
>> ask for outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with everyone
>> who doesn't see it your way is, utterly stupid.
>>
>> I hope you realize, your getting noplace.
>
> I have no destination. LOL haaaaaaahhahah funny..

My point above stands, regardless of your responses.




--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior

[Jenn]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday>
>
>> Peter Foldes wrote:
>>> Jenn
>
>>> You are beating a dead horse and aside from you having the last word
>>> as you always do. let this subject go already. Sheeeesh
>
>
>> Hey Peter ... Dave isn't a liar ... he told the truth that he didn't
>> get a warning. Some people just want others to shut up because they
>> don't want the truth come out. Dave is a good guy.

> Bullsh!t !
>
> If he was a "good guy" he wouldn't be trolling the news groups, he
> would not be siding with a well documented code thief and liar, he
> would not have been ToS'd from Aumha.Net and he would not have
> violated the ToS/AUP of Malwarebytes.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Dave being a good guy. I believe he is
... you believe he isn't.

> Now it is time for YOU to STFU.

Byte me ... Mr. Lipman.... Now that's as close as you'll see me ever get
to swearing at you because I just don't do that with anyone. You have no
authority to tell me to do anything.

> Your continued trolling on the content of the picture and now about a
> "warning" are side shows. They are moot points.

Getting the truth is never a moot point, David H. The truth about BD not
getting a warning has surfaced. It's about time, too.


> The Malwarebytes'
> AUP/ToS doesn't state they isuse warnings.

The TOS wasn't here and on other groups claiming that BD was given a warning
either as a reason for their actions.


> It states "You agree not
> to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful,
> threatening, sexually-oriented..." and "Engaging in any of the
> aforementioned activities may lead to you being immediately and
> permanently banned...".

uh huh .. I still want someone to explain how the image BD posted was any of
that, and if they can explain at what point an image becomes the above, the
least of which is "sexually-oriented" ... tell me how the cartoon image I
saw in that sigtag does not also qualify at least as being
"sexually-oriented" too. If an image is removed because it's sexually
oriented... then the cartoon image should also be removed because it also
qualifies as being sexaully oriented.


> There is NO QUESTION as to the picture he
> posted as being "sexually-oriented". Your "good guy" thinks he can
> do whatever he wants when he wants without scrutiny or conseqences.

Then, answer my query above. You won't, though, I'm sure of it because then
the conclusion will mean something you won't want to admit to.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Jenn]

Peter Foldes wrote:
> "Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message

>>>> shows nearly the same amount of breast. I just think ya'll call
>>>> something vulgar or secually oriented indescriminately and don't
>>>> include images like the sigtag image which could also fall into the
>>>> sexuall oriented category, too.
>>>
>>> Well, again,
>>>
>>> Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is
>>> banned, nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to
>>> ask for outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with
>>> everyone who doesn't see it your way is, utterly stupid.
>>>
>>> I hope you realize, your getting noplace.
>>
>> I have no destination. LOL haaaaaaahhahah funny..


> Bull****. He was given the warning and he knew.When that picture and
> his post was removed ,he knew it immediately. He had this happen
> before on another server. He is just crying foul so as he can get
> sympathy. He is a Troll

No warning was given, as Dustin recently admitted. You can't attest to what
someone else knew or did not know since you aren't that person. Dave cried
foul because he had a reason.

He was not given a warning, and the truth is finally public.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Jenn]

Dustin Cook wrote:
> "Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in

>>> The image was in good humour, but was clearly a titty shot; and thus
>>> would be subject to censorship due to sexually oriented material.
>>> Your the one who used Jerry Springer as an example. It's a very poor
>>> one for your defense..

>> On the contrary ... it shows how such images are no longer considered
>> to be sexually oriented, but rather they are considered to be
>> humorous, instead, just like what happens on that TV show.

> What happens on that show is person a tries to beatup person b, they
> both get caught and wrestled around. At no time do you see any
> titties, ass or anything else on public cable. Instead, it's blurred
> out. So really, Jerry Springer wasn't a good example.

It shows that real people in real audiences have a more loose view of what
is considered to be vulgar these days, Dustin. It has nothing to do with TV
blurring anything out.


>> Actually, it hasn't been pointless. You've finally admitted that
>> Dave wasn't given any warning about the image, and you've argued
>> many a time that he WAS given a warning. It has proven that Dave is
>> telling the truth... he usually says ... "the truth will out" ....
>> it finally did.


> Hmm, Depends on your point of view. Dave was not telling the truth
> about me, and the fact that both of you put together don't have enough
> functional brain matter to light a match is also, irrelevent.

Insults only show that your frustrated....


> The fact his picture was deleted is warning enough to most of us;
> aside from you and BD that is. But your not going to twist anything
> to make it sound like I set him up or anything else of the sort. I'll
> call you on it each time you try, like you did here.

To most people .. a warning on a ng would consist of TEXT written that
contains words that when put together they mean "don't do that.. we don't
like it"... You can't make assumptions people understand what you want when
no words are exchanged. All you have is an image disappearing with no
explanation... many people would think it was an error and repost it.


>> The sigtag image is just as offensive as the image Dave posted. How
>> many people would see that cartoon image and think.. "hmmmmmmm...
>> that's sexually oriented .. I'm not joining that group.. it's
>> supposed to be family oriented"... The cartoon image should also be
>> removed because it's sexually oriented. Pass the word along.


> They would just laugh as they have when you came to Dave's poor
> defense. They don't find it sexually oriented, many others do not
> either. You have no leg to stand on.


Really? Tell me at what point any image becomes sexually oriented? I"ll be
waiting for a long time because you and no one else are willing to give that
sort of an explanation because you will lose this argument the moment you
try.


>> You just never know if a discussion like this will change anything or
>> not.. do you? Hey.. you even finally dropped the argument that Dave
>> was warned and admitted he wasn't warned. That's progress!


> As I said, your attempted to twist things aside, He was warned, when
> his picture was deleted the first time. I'm sorry that Dave is the
> type of person who needs it spelled out and sent via certified mail
> before it makes sense.

A missing image is NOT a warning. Most everyone considers a warning on a ng
to come in TEXT format that says something like "Don't do that .. we don't
like it".


>>> Well, again,
>>>
>>> Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is
>>> banned, nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to
>>> ask for outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with
>>> everyone who doesn't see it your way is, utterly stupid.
>>>
>>> I hope you realize, your getting noplace.
>>
>> I have no destination. LOL haaaaaaahhahah funny..
>
> My point above stands, regardless of your responses.

As do my points stand... and I'll be waiting for a definitive response as to
when an image becomes sexually-oriented. (tick tick tick tick....)

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[~BD~]

I'm sure David H. Lipman intended to write:

Dave *is* a good guy!

+

He didn't really mean to say this (surely!) ...........

> If he was a "good guy" he wouldn't be trolling the news groups, he would not be siding
> with a well documented code thief and liar, he would not have been ToS'd from Aumha.Net
> and he would not have violated the ToS/AUP of Malwarebytes.
>
> Now it is time for YOU to STFU.

BD says ...

Jenn can - and will - say whatever she wishes! ;-)

She has my full support, btw!


> Your "good guy" thinks he can do whatever he wants when he wants without scrutiny or conseqences.

BD says - well, indeed I *can*, here on Usenet!

I have permission from the very *highest* authority!

Now ........

@ D H Lipman

You will note that Peter Foldes has effectively called you a liar in
this thread. You said I was *not* given a warning - *he* says I was.
Only one of you can be right!

Please explain why readers should believe you, Mr Lipman, and recognise
Mr Foldes as the miscreant. Thanks in anticipation.

--
Dave BD