uve said that before fucknut. On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 11:55 AM, n3td3v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> --On Tuesday, December 09, 2008 00:25:18 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:03:57 GMT, n3td3v said: >>>> We need to stop this back and forth fighting its making infosec look >>>> bad, this isn't what infosec should be about. >>> >>> It's making one very small insignificant corner of infosec look bad. >>> >>> Let's keep a sense of perspective, guys. >> >> Or, to look at it another way, it's tying up all the idiots in one place and >> keeping the rest of infosec unsullied. :-) >> > > I agree, > But full-disclosure shouldn't be full of idiots so why do we let it be > that way. It's because we reply to them that it happens. I was > gullible and naive to reply to them, i'm not replying to them anymore. > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
