Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 18:05:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Tony Kimball <alk@think.com> To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu Subject: rants [Meta-mail] Message-ID: <199608012305.SAA12090@compound.Think.COM>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[This is meta-mail and may be immediately deleted without review
by anyone with exclusively project-oriented interests.]
1) That's a huge exaggeration. It's true in exceptions, but calling it
common is a lie, and just as bad as the original incidents.
^^^
It is with some trepidation that I post. I would have kept this
message private, except that I feel this single word leaves me
publically defamed, and so I feel obligated to respond in the same
forum in the interests of preserving the utility (such as it is) of my
public reputation. With this post, I feel that I have adequately
defended my public reputation at this time, and I undertake to refrain
from any further posts to the list on this subject, barring more
substantive cause. (Advisory warning: The detail of this post may be
excruciating for some readers.)
alk contra chuckr
-----------------
1) That's a huge exaggeration. It's true in exceptions, but calling it
common is a lie, and just as bad as the original incidents.
A lie? I don't read the newspapers as a rule, and I never watch TV.
Yet in the past 5 years I could cite *dozens* of similar instances.
If my media-deprived ignorant condition can produce so many examples,
reason tells me that there must be a large number of similar cases. A
large number makes such common, to my mind. If you are being hit in a
nerve by my statements, okay, express yourself, but I'd thank you
kindly not to paint me a liar. Because I am not. "Deluded" or
"ignorant" or "mistaken", I can deal with. "Liar" cuts off the
possibility of dialog, at the personal level, and in a public forum
defames my character. I urge that it only be used in instances where
there is probable cause to believe that an intentional and manifest
untruth has uttered without cause or quotation.
Also, I would opine that lying to someone is *not* "just as bad"
as killing them.
2) This list is hardly a reasonable place to post such, regardless of
their truth. Go hit some usenet advocacy list.
It was topically appropriate because the individual in question (and
probably many other readers) did not appreciate the seriousness of the
matter. A graphic description of the possible extreme consequences
was entirely suitable to the education of non-US residents in the
matter, which is a shared interest of the FreeBSD community in general
and the hackers in particular, who are most effected by impact on
sup servers and the like.
3) We all probably disagree to some extent with the US crypto laws, but
calling mistakes to general attention sure isn't doing any good for the
person asking for help, is it?
That wasn't my point. While I do believe that the existing ITAR
regulations remain (marginally) offensive to good sense, we agree that
"hackers" is not in any wise an appropriate venue for rhetoric on this
subject. The point was to explain the seriousness of the matter,
because failure to understand it can materially hurt people. A small
probability of great damage provides a mathematical expectation of
loss equal to that of a proportionately larger probability of a
proportionately smaller loss. That the scope of damage to which I
alluded is at least improbable, I can agree. That it is entirely
consistent with recent experience with the US Federal government is to
me manifest, regardless of our shared distaste for this admittedly
distasteful state of affairs. I estimated the expectation of loss
to be greater in the marginal, extreme case, so I used that example
to convey my point.
Methinks I set the wrong tone with my intentional misspelling of
America, and you might have recieved my post more hospitably in its
absence. If so, I can clearly understand the effect, and sincerely
apologize for the petty rhetorical ploy -- I was in fact wearing my
heart on my sleeve, as it were. I shall certainly endeavour to be
more circumspect in avoiding politically sensitive allusion in any
future posts to "hackers". I have no more enjoyment of the noise
of metamail than any other reader.
Finally, lest the last paragraph should imply the "damn" of "faint
praise", I am aware that other aspects of my text were similarly
ranging into rhetorical territories all too likely to provoke
primarily emotional responses. I need to think about that somewhat.
(I have a hyperbolic style, and may need to temper it, although
I would prefer not to do so if it is not strictly necessary. I thank
you for providing an occasion for possible useful introspection.)
//alk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608012305.SAA12090>