"~BD~" <~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in message
news:5didnWilcfsaGLnTnZ2dnUVZ8kSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> "~BD~"<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com> wrote in message
>> news:PoidnfeG-9338rnTnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@bt.com...

>>> They must both be disappointed, though, that the 'company' dispensed with
>>> their services before Malwarebytes became *really* successful.
>>>
>>> I have no idea why they were dismissed though.
>>
>> Are you claiming that they were "dismissed" or "dispensed with"?
>>
>> If so, please cite some sort of reference for me to investigate.
>
> I am not claiming anything. Neither person is now employed by Malwarebytes. I
> do not know why; it is none of my business, is it?

No, it isn't.

> Why would *you* want to investigate? It's none of *your* business either - is
> it?

I want to believe that you tell the truth, but it is very hard to do so when
you phrase your questions in such an accusing way. It would be like me
asking you why you let your son die without lifting a finger to help him. It's
not lying, but it's not being truthful either.

>> I somebody quits, I can see it being called "let go" but not "dismissed"
>> or "dispensed with" because those two terms have a definite negative
>> connotation.
>
> Do they?

You know damned well that they do, you're not new to the English
language.

> I was unaware that Mr Lipman had chosen to 'quit' of his own volition.

You can't use that excuse more than once,

> Maybe he will now explain *why* he chose to leave such a flourishing company
> if he really was a key player. Being truthful will help.

Nobody owes you any explanations.

>> Are you attempting to imply something, or just willing to let others infer
>> wrongly that these researchers were sub-standard?
>
> Folk have to judge for themselves.

Since you have refused to be explicit in your intent above, it appears
that you knew you were skewing the truth. You see, being truthful
would help you as well, but you have refused to be truthful here.

Folk have to judge for themselves about your intent here too, and now
I'm sure they can see that you are a dishonest person. I believe that
you don't want to be seen as dishonest, only manipulative.

>> You definitely deserve a visit if it is either the former or the latter. Why
>> not just dispense with the slimy innuendo now that your targets have
>> shown you that they know where you live. You're just begging for some
>> anonymous foul play with real life consequences.
>
> My only *target* has been Foldes and his cronies at Aumha. If I have to suffer
> 'consequences' in real life to bring out the truth, then so be it.

You should not load your questions with innuendo meant to hurt the
reputations of others. It puts you in a bad light.

> Suitable documentation will survive to help track down any miscreants.

The problem with that is that you will have so much documentation about
so many people that you have intentionally upset, that the authorities will
have too many suspects and nothing to help them winnow them down to
an actual perpetrator. You are muddying up the waters to your own detriment.