So in short, you reversed it because it allows you to troll easier. That's what I thought. The quote is remembered because it is valid Shawn, your reverse quote on the other hand, is not. You would be one of "those" people who just don't get it.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Shawn McMahon > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Destroying PCs remotely? > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:32:37AM -0700, Dan Stromberg said: > > > He who would give up essential security for temporary > liberty shall > > > have neither. > > > > > > essential security -> tipical for post-911; and you really believe > > > this, don't you? > > > poor folks > > > > Shawn's words are actually a bit of a jumble from the > original quote: > > > > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. > > No, they're a carefully-considered counterpoint to the original quote, > because I've found this to be more effective in stiring > debate than just > attempting to point out the crucial importance of the words > "essential" > and "temporary" in the original. Some people Just Don't Get It. > > > -- > Shawn McMahon | Let every nation know, whether it wishes > us well or ill, > EIV Consulting | that we shall pay any price, bear any > burden, meet any > UNIX and Linux | hardship, support any friend, > oppose any foe, to assure > http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
