Jenn
You keep on showing exactly what you are and you do desrve everything that comes
your way.

--
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:hsp8i6$ph3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> 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)
>