funsec mailing list archives
Re: [privacy] eh? [was: profanity]
From: "Joel R. Helgeson" <joel () helgeson com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:50:53 -0600
Infringing on our rights? Hardly... I have the right to participate in a decent list. About the budget: What drives me nuts is that if Department X has a 2007 budget of $10 million, and requests an increase of $20 million for fiscal 2008 for a total budget of $30 mil, then congress approves $15 Million increase for a total budget of $25 mil, they scream stating that their budget was cut 25%... uh hello? It was increased by $15m when they requested $20m, that is 5m less than requested, but should not be EXPECTED. Quoth the article: "Department of Energy Office of Science, which received $342 million less than expected" awwwww... what is their existing budget, then what did they request? Whatever was approved was an increase that was $342m less than they had requested. So sad! Then reactionary know-nothing idiots read these and start posting their useful idiot phrases all over... it provides further evidence that half the people you know are below average... and know I know which half they belong to. Thank you, Joel Helgeson -----Original Message----- From: Gadi Evron [mailto:ge () linuxbox org] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:01 PM To: Larry Seltzer Cc: privacy digest mailing list Subject: [privacy] eh? [was: profanity] On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Larry Seltzer wrote:
What the hell is all this doing on a privacy mailing list? Take it Full-Disclosure where chaos reigns
Thanks for peer moderating. I just saw it now and sent a "stern warning" in, but the more I see the subject line line the more pissed I am. I mean, I am no Bush lover (doesn't mean I'm an hater, either) and I am not an American, but come on? 1. He is the president of your country (generic "your") show some backbone). 2. I am known to use profanity and colour up life, and I am known to voice opinions when they are not popular, but this "fuck Bush" subject line is just offensive, pointless, and shows what a fuck-up you (generic "you") are. 3. Profanity in the subject line is now disallowed, yes, I am infringing on your rights, this is basically me stating rules. Dude, Brian, you are both no longer welcome on the privacy mailing list. I don't care who started it. Gadi.
Larry Seltzer eWEEK.com Security Center Editor http://security.eweek.com/ http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/ Contributing Editor, PC Magazine larry.seltzer () ziffdavisenterprise com -----Original Message----- From: Dude VanWinkle [mailto:dudevanwinkle () gmail com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:23 PM To: Brian Loe Cc: privacy digest mailing list Subject: Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush On Dec 20, 2007 5:50 PM, Brian Loe <knobdy () gmail com> wrote:On Dec 20, 2007 4:44 PM, Dude VanWinkle <dudevanwinkle () gmail com>wrote:Keyes isn't listed either - and he's probably my favorite, now that he's joined.I will have to check him out, as this is the first I have heard ofhim..-JPYou won't like him. Well, maybe you will. While he states as fact thathe's the most conservative Republican candidate in the race, which he is, that makes him pretty libertarian. Think Ron Paul + religion - conspiracy theories - POSSIBLE white trash ties - POSSIBLE antisemite. BUT, if you can find video of the debate he was in - I believe in SC -where he argued why the states should KEEP their confederate flags...wow, inspiring.Well, I instantly don't like anyone who believes that humans are "special" and have a omnipotent and omniscient deity who cares about what whether I shit or get off the pot (see douglas adams), but I will still give it a try.. You gotta admit, from a science standpoint, the following would be a good thing: a.) Will work to "Restore scientific integrity by supporting the independent work of government scientists, promoting innovation and medical research, and by returning to evidence-based decision making." b.) Ban "political appointees from altering or removing scientific conclusions in government publications without any legitimate basis for doing so." c.) Prohibit "unwarranted suppression of public statements by government scientists." <removed> e.) Restore "the science advisor's direct access to the President." f.) Re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment. g.) Strengthen "whistle blower protections for those who disclose potential instances of political interference with science." h.) Direct "department and agency heads to safeguard against political pressure that threatens scientific integrity and to promote transparency in decision making." The person saying them may be a douchebag and a liar, but they are good ideas.. -JP _______________________________________________ privacy mailing list privacy () whitestar linuxbox org http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy _______________________________________________ privacy mailing list privacy () whitestar linuxbox org http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy
_______________________________________________ privacy mailing list privacy () whitestar linuxbox org http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy _______________________________________________ privacy mailing list privacy () whitestar linuxbox org http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy
Current thread:
- Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush, (continued)
- Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush Dude VanWinkle (Dec 20)
- Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush Dude VanWinkle (Dec 20)
- Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush Brian Loe (Dec 20)
- Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush Dude VanWinkle (Dec 20)
- Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush Brian Loe (Dec 20)
- Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush Dude VanWinkle (Dec 20)
- Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush Larry Seltzer (Dec 20)
- Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush Dude VanWinkle (Dec 20)
- Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush Gadi Evron (Dec 20)
- [privacy] eh? [was: profanity] Gadi Evron (Dec 20)
- Re: [privacy] eh? [was: profanity] Joel R. Helgeson (Dec 21)
- Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush Dude VanWinkle (Dec 20)