Obligation for personal attack? (was flame wars)

• Previous message: Robert J. Bradbury: "META: take a pint or two [was: ExI principles: people left behind?]"
• In reply to: Hubert Mania: "Re: flame wars"
• Next in thread: Hubert Mania: "Re: Obligation for personal attack? (was flame wars)"
• Reply: Hubert Mania: "Re: Obligation for personal attack? (was flame wars)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hubert Mania wrote,
> Frankly, I am surprised how many
> puritans and preacher's daughters are present on this list
> and who are ready to faint if someone uses more substantial
> and hearty words without making an affected fuss about it.

Frankly, I am surprised how many liars and hypocrites are present on this
list who pretended to agree to follow the list rules when they joined and
then later make it clear they have no intention of keeping their promise.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified
InfoSec Assessor, IBM-certified Security Consultant, SANS-cert GSEC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>

• Next message: Robert J. Bradbury: "Re: flame wars"
• Previous message: Robert J. Bradbury: "META: take a pint or two [was: ExI principles: people left behind?]"
• In reply to: Hubert Mania: "Re: flame wars"
• Next in thread: Hubert Mania: "Re: Obligation for personal attack? (was flame wars)"
• Reply: Hubert Mania: "Re: Obligation for personal attack? (was flame wars)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 11:35:59 MDT