Re: Can someone exlpain this to me?

[Paul Schmehl <pauls () utdallas edu>]

--On February 18, 2006 4:04:27 PM -0500 Dude VanWinkle 
<dudevanwinkle () gmail com> wrote:
> Its really interesting how you only responded to the parts of my email
> that you can rationalize. This was the joke email, its predecessor is
> the one in which I listed murderers of children and women.  I am
> guessing this is a defence mechanism.
I find that when people make assumptions about other people, they are 
almost always wrong.  I have no idea who the people are that you listed - 
thus no response to your post.

> Now you may respond with "Peterson was not a zealot". Maybe not a
> religious one, but for love of money, his zealotry was obscene.
I have no idea who "Peterson" is.
> Now I could make assumptions as to what this says about your
> character, what with focusing on cash and ignoring all human elements
> or emotional ones, but I am trying to clean up my act :-).

You really should, because your assumptions are so off base as to be 
laughable.

> I will
> instead ask that, when debating someone, try and give a little leeway
> in reading your opponents statements. Dont look at the "letter of the
> law", trying to find one idea that you can use to shred your opponent
> to bits, discarding the rest as "nothing you can work with". Rather
> try to look at the "spirit of the law" or what I am actually writing
> and trying to convey. In order to do this, you must read the _entire_
> sentence before coming up with a way to refute it.
What you've written is bogus psychological bs fed by "experts" who have no 
idea what they're talking about.  What I responded with was facts based 
upon scientific analysis of the problem.  Suicide bombers are, in the 
majority of cases, not motivated by poorness (however you now want to 
redefine it) or by unhappiness (however you know want to refine that.) 
Those are facts.  The rest is opinion.

You may have the last word.  Feel free to speculate all you want about who 
I am or what I think.

*I* find it interesting that, rather than attack my response which attacked 
the *ideas* you mentioned, *you* felt it necessary to speculate about *my* 
motives and beliefs.  It's frequently the chosen method of argumentation on 
the internet, but it remains completely unconvincing to me.

Paul Schmehl (pauls () utdallas edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.