> I have to hand it to you. Arguing that *withholding* information > *increases* freedom and doing it with a straight face is > certainly bold. > :-)
See what I am starting to see is a thin line dividing both arguments. For example Anakata basically meant the way non-disclosure (withholding info) will free us from the current state of people hacking boxes they don't even know who it belongs to, or our firewalls constantly at peaked resources do to the worms and scanning that happens against a network that has absolutely nothing of value. However as you can see and not to his fault, Paul sees it differently through the same words. I feel if any headway will be made, the arguments must not allow for any vague references or all this will become is logic soup. There will always be valid arguments on either side of a debate. It is the side that is left undisputed that will be the victor. To do that your words must be precise and clear and to not allow for interpretation. Regards! -GungHoGun *pr0j3ct m4yh3m unf!...* We're not God. Not only are our powers limited, we sometimes are driven to become the devil himself. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
