Warfare all over

[arch3angel at gmail.com (Arch Angel)]

These are two of the best statements I have ever read regarding this entire
topic!!!!!

I agree that by saying the statement it trivializes actual warfare, and for
that I have little to no support.  I hold my country and my Brothers in Arms
(included is the ladies) dear to my heart.  I have lost too many friends to
actual war to disrespect their memories.

The tactical statement is also dead on the money.  While it is not allowed,
it is also not ethical!  My son, which is 11 years old, wants to learn more
about security and hacking, but I have a duty to make sure what is taught
him is not used for evil things.  I was told a long time ago if you don't
stand for what you believe then you shall fall for what others believe, and
until he understands the difference in ethical and non-ethical I must hold
back the knowledge.  If I were to pass along too much he may become the
attacker and not the defender...

Having an understanding as to why vocabulary is being used does not
inherently make it the right statement...

Excellent statements Jack, and with your permission I would like to pass
them on :-)

Robert

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Jack Daniel <jackadaniel at gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a couple of real problems with the whole "warfare" analogy-
> first, as expressed before, it trivializes actual warfare, which is
> disrespectful and desensitizing.
> On a more "tactical" level, those of us who work to defend are not
> allowed counterstrikes, much less preemptive attacks to secure
> ourselves.
>
> Jack
> _______________________________________________
> Pauldotcom mailing list
> Pauldotcom at mail.pauldotcom.com
> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom
> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.pauldotcom.com/pipermail/pauldotcom/attachments/20090102/648db10a/attachment.htm