RE: (no subject) PS

[Gregory Kornblum <GKornblum () guesswho com>]

> I have to hand it to you.  Arguing that *withholding* information
> *increases* freedom and doing it with a straight face is 
> certainly bold.
> :-)

See what I am starting to see is a thin line dividing both arguments. For
example Anakata basically meant the way non-disclosure (withholding info)
will free us from the current state of people hacking boxes they don't even
know who it belongs to, or our firewalls constantly at peaked resources do
to the worms and scanning that happens against a network that has absolutely
nothing of value. However as you can see and not to his fault, Paul sees it
differently through the same words. I feel if any headway will be made, the
arguments must not allow for any vague references or all this will become is
logic soup. There will always be valid arguments on either side of a debate.
It is the side that is left undisputed that will be the victor. To do that
your words must be precise and clear and to not allow for interpretation.
Regards!

-GungHoGun

*pr0j3ct m4yh3m unf!...*

We're not God. Not only are our powers limited, we sometimes are driven to
become the devil himself. 
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html