From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri Jun 13 2003 - 06:13:05 MDT
Dehede011@aol.com wrote,
> Last, while you two young lads were leaping so quickly to
> that ladies defense you might have noticed that she never
> complained about me misrepresenting her.
This is another logical flaw that I have been seeing a lot on the list
lately: The assumption that there must be only two choices, so that by
looking at one we can assume something about the other. Amara is assumed to
be supportive if she hasn't complained. Damien is assumed to support
regimes he hasn't posted against. I have been assumed to support communism
when I argue on an unrelated topic with an anti-communist. A person who
questions our President is assumed to be anti-American. A person who posts
unfavorable battle statistics is assumed to be supportive of terrorists.
The world isn't binary! These faulty deductions are wasting a lot of time
and driving a lot of people away with baseless accusations. A lack of
complaint does not prove support. Pointing out flaws in one side does not
mean someone is on the other side. Disliking our current President is not a
war crime. We have enough differences of opinion. We don't need to project
further ones where they do not really exist.
Seriously, folks: I don't think we have been infiltrated by anti-American
terrorists on this list. Half of the current debates and defenses of
people's positions are over fictional topics and baseless accusations. I
can't imagine someone disrupting our group more effectively if they
deliberately tried.
-- 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 : Fri Jun 13 2003 - 06:25:33 MDT