RE: Destroying PCs remotely?

["JT" <ptourvi1 () twcny rr com>]

So in short, you reversed it because it allows you to troll easier. That's
what I thought. The quote is remembered because it is valid Shawn, your
reverse quote on the other hand, is not. You would be one of "those" people
who just don't get it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of 
> Shawn McMahon
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:05 PM
> To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Destroying PCs remotely?
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:32:37AM -0700, Dan Stromberg said:
> > > He who would give up essential security for temporary 
> liberty shall
> > > have neither.
> > >
> > > essential security -> tipical for post-911; and you really believe
> > > this, don't you? 
> > > poor folks
> >
> > Shawn's words are actually a bit of a jumble from the 
> original quote:
> > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
>
> No, they're a carefully-considered counterpoint to the original quote,
> because I've found this to be more effective in stiring 
> debate than just
> attempting to point out the crucial importance of the words 
> "essential"
> and "temporary" in the original.  Some people Just Don't Get It.
>
>
> -- 
> Shawn McMahon     | Let every nation know, whether it wishes 
> us well or ill,
> EIV Consulting    | that we shall pay any price, bear any 
> burden, meet any
> UNIX and Linux          | hardship, support any friend, 
> oppose any foe, to assure
> http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html