FromTheRafters wrote:
> "~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.

However, the business of Malwarebytes *is* my business - it is in the
public domain. You should read here:

http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...howtopic=21804

If you follow a link in the response, you will find a comment by me.

I'm *still* trying to get to the truth. It is that simple.

>> 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* would give you a truthful and straight-forward answer.

Folk who have nothing to hide invariably answer in a similar manner.
*You* do (I hope! <grin>). I *do* tell you the truth - always.

>>> 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,

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "~BD~"<~BD~@nomail.afraid.com>
>
>> David H. Lipman wrote:
>>
>>> Please note: Since BD was kicked off the Malwarebytes' forum for
posting improper, sexually oriented, graphics he seeks out to besmirch
Malwarebytes whenever, wherever, possible.

>> Ah!

>> Do you know, David - I thought it was because I had the gall to
suggest that the programme might well eradicate all manner of malware -
but might possibly (just *possibly*) insert either a Trojan or a 'back
door' onto the otherwise cleaned computer.

>> David - tell folk here *why* you were dismissed from employment by
Malwarebytes. I'm sure readers would like to know.

> Look you piece of ****, I was not dismissed. I resigned. It was my
decision, my choice and for my reasons.

> Gee, so much for that statement that you "never lie". You just did -
twice.

It would be sooooo much more straight-forward if you simply told the
truth and gave a brief explanation regarding your choice and reasons.

Folk usually abandon a sinking ship - not a company flying high.

Why cannot you see that?

Btw - I didn't lie at all - I simply asked you a question. I obviously
touched a nerve - yet again. Sorry 'bout that!

Ref: Message-ID: <3u2dnbTS8vN5HLnTnZ2dnUVZ8sadnZ2d@bt.com>


>> 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.

*
I expect Rupert Murdoch thought that way too.
*

No satisfactory explanation ALWAYS leads to more questions!


>>> 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.

Let's be quite clear. I *am* manipulative. I'm good at it.

BUT - I *do* tell the truth.

>>> 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.

Your advice is welcomed and noted, FTR.

Nobody who has been straight-forward and honest with me has ever had to
suffer sustained questioning. I most certainly have no intention of
damaging the reputation of honest folk - but it's difficult to know who
they are sometimes.

>> 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.

Then I will have to deal with any 'visitors' myself - or /try/ to! ;-)

Your point *is* taken though. I'll consider how best to narrow the
search should it become necessary. Hmmm. <how best to do that>?

HTH

HAND

D.