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)