full-disclosure - Re: Re: Re: George Bush appoints a 9 year old to be the chairperson of the Information Security Deportment

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

Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:20:35 -0500
From: Paul Schmehl <pauls@...allas.edu>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Re: Re: George Bush appoints a 9 year old to
	be the chairperson of the Information Security Deportment

--On Tuesday, August 29, 2006 22:12:03 +0100 teh kids 
<tehkids@...glemail.com> wrote:
>
> that is bad reporting, not bias, please show how there is bias in that
> statement.
>
Sure it's not bias.  Just bad reporting.  Yet someone that bad reporting 
always fails in the same direction.....

[snip]
>
> Right, so they problem is that Hezbollah plays games with the press?
> therefore the bbc is biased? you are trying to confuse the issue (or
> you are confused about the issue)
>
There was a time when reporting meant getting the facts, not acting as a 
stenographer.

>> I'm aware that
>> photos of the war were altered, using Photoshop, and Reuters was forced
>> to remove the photos and fire the photographer because bloggers, not the
>> media, exposed the deception.
>
> What on earth does this have to do with the bias of the bbc? trying to
> move the subject to something else ? (is this a case of being dragged
> down then beaten with experience?)
>
Hezbollah tells a story.  BBC repeats it.  No effort is made to see if the 
story is actually true.  But it's not bias.  Sure thing.
>
> pardon? it was you claiming bias so the onus of proof is on you.  If I
> do not see your sources how can I possibly hope to have a discussion
> about them? are you hiding from the issue? is that because you realise
> that you are acting on feelings and your own clouded judgment?
>
Why would you need my sources?  Why would you believe them anyway?  If 
someone tells you something is true, find out for yourself if it is.  Start 
with Snopes and work your way around.  Or stay uninformed.  I don't really 
care.
>
> so every other website except the bbc will give full evidence
> supporting your statements? if it is that easy why can you not provide
> the information yourself? Why will you not state your own bias? why
> are you making me try to guess at it?
>
>> Or just read this:
>> <http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/>
>
> The conclusion from zombie times
>
> "Is the media that gullible -- or does it have a political bias?
> Either way, its credibility has now been lost."
>
> I say gullible, you say bias, i say cite evidence, you say no! Occam's
> razor anyone?
>
Yet they don't seem nearly as gullible about some things, do they?

I've said this many times before.  If you want to stop political posts to 
this list, then stop them.  But so long as people post their opinions, and 
I disagree, I'll respond.  I don't really care if you believe it or not, 
and all the crap about tinfoil hats and the other bs is just that - bs. 
And I don't owe you an explanation or "proof" (as if you'd believe it 
anyway!) any more than the people making statements without backing them up 
owe me.

Paul Schmehl (pauls@...allas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/

Content of type "application/pkcs7-signature" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/