Re: Is MBAMMARIES is a 100% safe application?

[Dustin Cook]

"Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in
news:hsjrrq$96o$1@news.eternal-september.org:

> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> "Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
>> news:hsiej8$pf6$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>> "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented".
>>>>
>>>> Show us your tits!
>>>
>>> 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".
>>
>> Perhaps you haven't noticed, but when they do the titty flashes; it's
>> blurred so you can't see it. Why do you suppose that might be?
>>
>> Granted, if you watch on a premium channel you can see the uncensored
>> version; but the fact it's censored to begin with sort of nullifies
>> your moronic point here.
>>
>>> Now.. explain at what point something becomes vulgar or sexually
>>> oriented.
>>
>> When it's titties, vagina, or dick. How's that?
>
> 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..

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.

> 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.

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.


> 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.


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

[Bullwinkle]

Nor are you.

Neither of your too can let the other have the last word.

No difference in the two of you.

Reply as you must.


"Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D799D61B5D1HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250...
"Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in

I hope you realize, your getting noplace.

[Jenn]

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)

[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)
>

[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)

[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]

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)

[Peter Foldes]

Jenn

All I can do is laugh at your stupid ignorant reply. You must walk around with
closed eyes. My G*d ,I have not seen anybody as ignoorant than you. Unfriickin
unbelievable

--
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:hsp97c$a8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> 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)
>

[Jenn]

Peter Foldes wrote:
> Jenn
>
> All I can do is laugh at your stupid ignorant reply. You must walk
> around with closed eyes. My G*d ,I have not seen anybody as ignoorant
> than you. Unfriickin unbelievable
>
>

Peter ... you only respond like this when you can't refute what I've said.



--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Max Wachtel]

On Sun, 16 May 2010 13:15:26 -0400, Jenn <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote:

> 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".

many of the forums I frequent do not issue warnings,they just delete the
offending link,text and/or image and if the poster keeps doing it,their
account is deleted.

> I'll be waiting for a definitive response as to when an image becomes
> sexually-oriented.

when the mod deems them so.
--
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.