From: ptourvi1 at twcny.rr.com (JT)
Subject: Destroying PCs remotely?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com 
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@...ts.netsys.com] On Behalf Of 
> Shawn McMahon
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:26 AM
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Destroying PCs remotely?
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:03:03AM -0400, JT said:
> > 
> > overreacting because he didn't even propose it as a 
> law....even though it
> > would seem he is having hearings on the matter. I wonder 
> what the process is
> 
> Yes, to anyone who hasn't read the news stories, and is working from
> third-hand information that they didn't read for 
> comprehension, it would
> seem like he's having hearings on this matter.

Yeah, I remember that last Senator who made an "off the cuff remark" I
believe he was forced to step down from his position. I read the news
stories, that's why we are discussing this. It's been all over the news,
seems a lot of people share my feelings. 
> 
> For anybody actually following the story, it would seem like 
> he made an
> off-the-cuff comment in a hearing on the more general matter.

Please see above and refer to my previous statement about past history.
> 
> > exist until HE MADE IT UP!!  Maybe you believe we live in a 
> republic, but as
> > it stands, the government is controlled by big business and 
> lobbying. Maybe
> 
> Exactly which business put a gun to your head and made you 
> vote for him?
> Or do you believe that they only do that to everybody else in the
> country, just not you?

Please reread and comprehend the above statement first. The business/lobby
groups control him via campaign contributions and other money. Had I said
big business controls the voting procedure, your comment may have made some
sense. As it stands, it almost sounds like you are being obtuse to try and
bolster your argument.

 > 
> > First off, your Ben Franklin quote is 
> backwards..second...the original quote
> 
> I had no Ben Frankling quote.  I had a Shawn McMahon quote.  Feel free
> to use it.

Well Shawn, way to rip off Ben F. Yeah, you came up with that on your own.
Whatever. BTW, your quote is still wrong anyways. I gotta say Ben Franklin
was a smarter man :)
> 
> > you're trying to use directly contradicts everything 
> following it. The
> > correct quote is "He who would give up essential liberties 
> for temporary
> > security shall have neither"  Let me translate that for ya 
> cause it's a
> > quote MY side uses to support our point anyways LOL- 
> > 
> > If we give up rights like the patriot act has us do in the 
> hopes for some
> > temp. security, we will have neither. Get it?
> 
> Wrong.  The Patriot Act doesn't strip ESSENTIAL liberties for 
> TEMPORARY
> security.  It inconveniences liberties for permanent security.

Contradict yourself some more for me would you? Last email you said:

"The Patriot Act amounts to short-term inconvenience for a few, that the
many might live." 

So which is it Shawn, temp or permanent?!?!? By law, it's supposed to be
temporary, hence the sunset clause that Hatch and others would like to
revoke.
> 
> > That means MORE laws, stripping away MORE RIGHTS, in the 
> name of SECURITY,
> > is USELESS and WILL NOT WORK.
> 
> Franklin's entire adult life was spent writing laws to enhance
> security, at the expense of liberty.  It's called "rule of law instead
> of anarchy".  Temporarily keeping details of court-ordered wiretaps
> secret, which is the primary objection that has been leveled at the
> Patriot Act, isn't stripping essential liberty for temporary safety.
> It's all still court-controlled and overseen by the 
> Legislative branch,
> just not made fully public as quickly.  Oooooo, I'm so scared, Big
> Brother is keeping secrets from the enemy.  The horror.

Again, you show you have no clue what you are talking about. That is not the
primary objection with the patriot act at all. I've provided you with a link
to a page full of issues. If you need more let me know, I'll gladly grab
them from other sites as well.
> 
> If anything, it is likely to result in MORE oversight, and 
> LESS abuse of
> power, because law enforcement will be less tempted to cheat 
> instead of
> letting the bad guys find out what we're doing.
> 
> Removing the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater was 
> a reduction
> in liberty in the name of security.  I 100% support it.  Live with it.

Yeah, yelling fire in a crowded theatre is the same. Again, whatever..Just
cause you CAN make an analogy Shawn, doesn't mean it's correct OR relevant.

I'm sorry, this is going to go downhill right here. I can't argue with
someone who is so blatantly idiotic that they border on troll. The Patriot
act has numerous problems. Maybe you should read more about the problems
with it. 

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_
patriot_analysis.php

At any rate Shawn, keep spouting and contradicting yourself, it really
strengthens your argument, either way..I'm done wasting my time on an
obvious troll.


> 
> 
> -- 
> Shawn McMahon     | Let every nation know, whether it wishes 
> us well or ill,
> EIV Consulting    | that we shall pay any price, bear any 
> burden, meet any
> UNIX and Linux	  | hardship, support any friend, 
> oppose any foe, to assure
> http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists