full-disclosure - BANTOWN PRESENTS: Give me 0day or give me death

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sun Dec 18 08:53:10 2005
From: infosecbofh at gmail.com (InfoSecBOFH)
Subject: BANTOWN PRESENTS: Give me 0day or give me death

Of course you won't respond because your tiny little brain cannot
figure out anything to defend your tripe.

Other than my comparisson between your mommy and the Internet I made
some pretty good arguments that you obviously have no reponse to.

Figures..

Oh and I just did your little google search...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/16/bush.nsa.ap/

Is the first link and the only legitimate link (if you believe CNN
that is) on the first page.  So again, I find you exagerating things
to make your point.  Don't get me wrong, I do not support Bush in the
least but your argument is boyond weak...



On 12/18/05, Andrew A <gluttony@...il.com> wrote:
> I would like to apologize for throwing the term fascist around so lightly,
> but I do not know many labels to apply to someone who does not feel that
> freedom of political expression is not an inalienable right. Nevertheless,
> consider this my retraction of that part of my post.
>
> I had hoped for a mature discussion of the various philosophical and
> epitemeological issues on the table without it becoming tainted by posts
> like these.
>
> Regarding your comments on the fourth amendment point: I am guessing you do
> not pay attention to what goes on in the world. Just to let you know, a
> simple search on Google News for "bush fourth amendment" will bring up
> countless articles detailing Bush's flagrant, intentional violation of the
> United States Constitution. I will not respond to the rest of your post as
> it is ridden with personal attacks, logical fallacies, and factual
> innaccuracies, but if anyone else would like to bring up similar points in a
> mature manner I would be happy to respond to them.
>
> On 12/18/05, InfoSecBOFH <infosecbofh@...il.com> wrote:
> > So as much as you hate it, the internet calls the DoD daddy just like
> > you as a small child, created by that drunken night an Amsterdam whore
> > was raped, called a woman that everyone uses mommy.  Go figure,
> > everyone uses mommy and everyone uses the Internet yet they both still
> > had owners.  The Internet owned by the US DoD.  Your mommy owned by
> > crack cocaine and a pimp hand.
> > ...
> > Sure there is.  If that code is unauthorized or unwanted on the
> > machine then there are ethical and moral violations if you introduce
> > that code.  To bring this back to something you understand.  It was an
> > ethical and moral violation for the owners of your mommy to introduce
> > heroin into her system, but yet she executed the syringe willingly.
> >
>