From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 19:50:09 MDT
Spudboy100@aol.com wrote,
> E, Yudkowsky wrote:
> <<Ah, yes, the old punishment-of-nonpunishers trick.>>
>
> Ah, yes, the old realizing that those whom are invariably, neutral
> towards antagonistic tyrants, but scream like banshee's whenever
> the US does something trick! Very clever of me, but yes, that
> is my dastardly plan! Muah hah hah hah!
Ah, yes, the old "they haven't criticized the enemy enough so they must be
the enemy" trick. Seriously, you can't judge people on what they haven't
said. Or I could just accuse you of every crime that you haven't
specifically railed out against.
So what if some people like attacking George Bush? How does that in any way
imply that they secretly support other tyrants that they have not attacked?
This is ludicrous reasoning.
I don't have time to attack every tyrant around the world. Therefore I
choose to focus on the one that is closest and represents the biggest threat
to me. What is wrong with letting people choose which problem they want to
attack? How does bigger problems elsewhere imply that they aren't allowed
to complain about other smaller problems right here at home?
-- 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>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 14 2003 - 19:59:48 MDT