[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <014e01c33691$5dce8800$6e01a8c0@tekwiz>
From: ptourvi1 at twcny.rr.com (JT)
Subject: Destroying PCs remotely?
So in short, you reversed it because it allows you to troll easier. That's
what I thought. The quote is remembered because it is valid Shawn, your
reverse quote on the other hand, is not. You would be one of "those" people
who just don't get it.
> -----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 1:05 PM
> To: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
> Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Destroying PCs remotely?
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:32:37AM -0700, Dan Stromberg said:
> > > He who would give up essential security for temporary
> liberty shall
> > > have neither.
> > >
> > > essential security -> tipical for post-911; and you really believe
> > > this, don't you?
> > > poor folks
> >
> > Shawn's words are actually a bit of a jumble from the
> original quote:
> >
> > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
>
> No, they're a carefully-considered counterpoint to the original quote,
> because I've found this to be more effective in stiring
> debate than just
> attempting to point out the crucial importance of the words
> "essential"
> and "temporary" in the original. Some people Just Don't Get It.
>
>
> --
> 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