Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws
On Oct 12, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Oliver Hansen wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix wrote: > On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote: > So asking the question is stupid > > On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote: > IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in > stroking their own ego. > > On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: > Otherwise: get off my lawn. > I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest. > Now that I'm back on US soil, I promise that if the later continues, I will > kill the thread. People who hijack threads will be dealt with. > Otherwise: STFU. > > Nor will I endure the besmirching of pfSense's good name and trademark. > > The only one who is besmirching pfSense here is: you - given that as a > co-owner of ESF you are an official representative of pfSense - and your > official communication unfortunately shows that you are a vulgarian, > plebeian, obscene, scurrilous goon, who insults, threatens, bullys, censors > and muzzles other community members, totally lacking control of himself and > any professional business manners whatsoever, let alone any constructive > discussion culture. > > To me it feels highly awkward and it is unsettling me a lot, that such an > ill-mannered, shady and dubious roughneck like you holds a key position in > the project that creates the security product that we use for protecting our > networks. > > I have no idea why highly respected Chris Buechler partnered with you, but it > might be good if you would learn a lesson from him concerning his > professionalism, seriousness and manners in his official communication. > > Bye. > > I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do agree. I > have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading) and have always > been impressed with the professionalism of most members who write and > especially those affiliated with the project. I have been quite surprised and > disappointed in the attitude and tone coming from Jim Thompson this last week > and in my opinion THAT is what reflects poorly on the project. It may be that Jim simply saw what looked like a sock puppet come onto the list and start spreading FUD about ESF and pfSense. Normally, when you see what you consider to be a troll, the usually response is "don't feed the troll" and ignore the thread until it runs out of fuel. I guess the response is different, though, when someone is directing FUD at your company. Then, rather than annoyance and bruised egos, the damage can be more real and a more robust response might be warranted. It's up to Jim how he expresses himself. Given that "Thinker Rix" was doing a remarkable job of impersonating a troll (IMHO), I think the blunt approach is the pragmatic logical endpoint of that dialogue. It's sad, but dealing with trolls is a sad business. :-( Cheers, Paul. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
Hi again, >> So, if I have an ALIX that I would like to upgrade, how much would >> I have to increase /tmp and /var by to have the upgrade run to >> completion without filling the partitions? > How many Interfaces do you have. With 5 it is no problem with 11 it > is. Can't tell you where the exact separation is. The problem also > occurs when the RRD data is delete before the upgrade, so the empty > rrd files are to big, when 11 interfaces are used. I will try to > figure out where the limit is. I checked it tonight. The limit is 4 additional opt interfaces (6 all together). With more the /var on a normal NanoBSD installation will get full. Could someone confirm this and update the website? Thanks CU Jens ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws
On Oct 12, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Chris L wrote: > >> On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>> I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest. > > Nice position to take, except Alex Jones was right. Sigh. As much as this doesn’t belong on the pfsense list… I actually know Alex, or did, 13 year ago. I got friendly enough with him back in the mid-late 90s that we had each other’s cell phone numbers. Back then Jamie and I were involved with Fringeware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FringeWare_Review http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue26/screens.fringeware.html Fringeware became an advertiser on Alex Jones' radio show (on KLBJ, before he got booted). On the front-end, I was a respected advertiser. Meanwhile, others associated with Fringeware were culture-jamming him on the back-end. the result: #discordia Oh, the memories this brings back. (As you’ll see, the FBI showed up to demand something, didn’t have a warrant, and was shown the sidewalk.) http://www.wingtv.net/thorn2006/jarhead.html http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2000-07-14/77932/ Clayton, btw is a dear friend. Easily one of the most brilliant people I’ve ever known. I hope he speaks at my funeral. Other fun was had at Fringeware. We supported the Yes Men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men) We actually hosted their website, as well as that of RTmark for a period in the late 90s on the same machine used for smallworks.com (which was originally the corporation behind the firewall named “Netgate”), fringeware.com, etc. One of their pranks was that they setup a website named www.gwbush.com. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men#George_W._Bush http://theyesmen.org/hijinks/gwbush http://www.rtmark.com/bush.html) which resulted in Bush’s famous "There ought to be limits to freedom,” quote. http://www.rtmark.com/bushpr2.html The great untold story on this is that all these websites were hosted in a shitty office building on Shoal Creek Blvd, one floor up from the then offices of "Karl Rove & Associates” even as they fought to shutdown gwbush.com. The #irony was delicious, and they never succeeded. :-) Anyway, you might want to study up on STRATFOR, or Mary Maroney, who was the editor and chief of Infowars magazine until earlier this year. Maroney formerly worked for Stratfor and Parker Media here in Austin. If you don’t know who they are, then I suggest more research on your part. Have fun, but be careful when you enter the rabbit hole. Snowden and Manning are both late-comers to the party: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519661/nsas-own-hardware-backdoors-may-still-be-a-problem-from-hell/ http://cryptome.org/nsa-ssl-email.htm http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20017671-281.html http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/09/15-shumow.pdf (see also: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/?p=85661) http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/01/secret-backdoors-found-in-firewall-vpn-gear-from-barracuda-networks/ http://dl.packetstormsecurity.net/papers/general/my_research1.pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.154.825 / http://www.cs.ucf.edu/~czou/research/Chipset%20Backdoor-AsiaCCS09.pdf (now consider all the cheerleading for Intel Ethernet chips on the various pfSense lists…) Jim ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] Upgrade Guide: Needs update for Auto Update
On Oct 12, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Thinker Rix wrote: > Hello all, > > I just performed an upgrade to 2.1 via the "Auto update" feature in the web > UI, which worked flawlessly. > > When studying the Upgrade Guide > (https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Upgrade_Guide) prior the upgrade I could > not find any information about it. > Is there a way I can update the guide myself? Otherwise maybe someone with > writing rights to the CMS wants to update the manual. > > Cheers > Thinker Rix > > P.S. Maybe an update to this page would be convenient, too: > https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Can_I_upgrade_my_pfSense_through_the_web_interface%3F My immediate suggestion is to edit a copy of the page (it’s a wiki, so “view source”), perform a ‘diff’ and send the result to coreteam-at-pfsense-dot-org. Jim ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
[pfSense] Upgrade Guide: Needs update for Auto Update
Hello all, I just performed an upgrade to 2.1 via the "Auto update" feature in the web UI, which worked flawlessly. When studying the Upgrade Guide (https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Upgrade_Guide) prior the upgrade I could not find any information about it. Is there a way I can update the guide myself? Otherwise maybe someone with writing rights to the CMS wants to update the manual. Cheers Thinker Rix P.S. Maybe an update to this page would be convenient, too: https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Can_I_upgrade_my_pfSense_through_the_web_interface%3F ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws
+1 On 10/12/2013 12:41 PM, Adrian Wenzel wrote: I'm behind Jim on this. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws
> On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: >> >> I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest. Nice position to take, except Alex Jones was right. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws
- Original Message - From: "Adrian Wenzel" To: "pfSense support and discussion" Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:41:40 AM Subject: Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws > > I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do > agree. I have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading) > and have always been impressed with the professionalism of most > members who write and especially those affiliated with the project. > I have been quite surprised and disappointed in the attitude and > tone coming from Jim Thompson this last week and in my opinion THAT > is what reflects poorly on the project. I totally disagree. I respect people who give their opinion outright. We can flop about and sugar coat everything, try to make everyone feel fuzzy... and all that does is lead to misunderstandings and openings for more convoluted and pointless discussions. I've been a part of the open source community for over 20 years, and mostly we're a group of free thinking, well-intentioned individuals who have many irons in the fire. We know the value of our time, and thus respect the value of others' time as well. Our projects are not a place for discussions that can have no resolution: politics, religion, general conspiracy theories. I'm behind Jim on this. Regards, Adrian But notice how you agreed with Jim without using any personal attacks? I have no problem with that. It is completely possible to give your opinion outright about a *TOPIC* without attacking the person or threatening them. Jim's latest response actually does this pretty well and attacks the facts instead of the person. I'll let this go now but I felt it had to be said. -Oliver ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 01:41:40PM -0400, Adrian Wenzel wrote: > > I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do > > agree. I have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading) > > and have always been impressed with the professionalism of most > > members who write and especially those affiliated with the project. > > I have been quite surprised and disappointed in the attitude and > > tone coming from Jim Thompson this last week and in my opinion THAT > > is what reflects poorly on the project. > > I totally disagree. I respect people who give their opinion outright. We > can flop about and sugar coat everything, try to make everyone feel fuzzy... > and all that does is lead to misunderstandings and openings for more > convoluted and pointless discussions. I've been a part of the open source > community for over 20 years, and mostly we're a group of free thinking, > well-intentioned individuals who have many irons in the fire. We know the > value of our time, and thus respect the value of others' time as well. Our > projects are not a place for discussions that can have no resolution: > politics, religion, general conspiracy theories. > > I'm behind Jim on this. I think the points of view on all sides have been now been sufficiently vented, and we can agree that the differences are irreconcilable and the thread can be now laid to rest. So let's all agree to disagree, and make optimal use of pfSense, under above circumstances. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws
- Original Message - > From: "Oliver Hansen" > To: "pfSense support and discussion" > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 11:23:56 AM > Subject: Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix < > thinke...@rocketmail.com > wrote: > > On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote: > > > > So asking the question is stupid > > > > > On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote: > > > > IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the > > > question in stroking their own ego. > > > > > On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: > > > > Otherwise: get off my lawn. > > > > > > I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest. > > > > > > Now that I'm back on US soil, I promise that if the later > > > continues, > > > I will kill the thread. People who hijack threads will be dealt > > > with. > > > > > > Otherwise: STFU. > > > > > > Nor will I endure the besmirching of pfSense's good name and > > > trademark. > > > > > The only one who is besmirching pfSense here is: you - given that > > as > > a co-owner of ESF you are an official representative of pfSense - > > and your official communication unfortunately shows that you are a > > vulgarian, plebeian, obscene, scurrilous goon, who insults, > > threatens, bullys, censors and muzzles other community members, > > totally lacking control of himself and any professional business > > manners whatsoever, let alone any constructive discussion culture. > > > To me it feels highly awkward and it is unsettling me a lot, that > > such an ill-mannered, shady and dubious roughneck like you holds a > > key position in the project that creates the security product that > > we use for protecting our networks. > > > I have no idea why highly respected Chris Buechler partnered with > > you, but it might be good if you would learn a lesson from him > > concerning his professionalism, seriousness and manners in his > > official communication. > > > Bye. > > I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do > agree. I have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading) > and have always been impressed with the professionalism of most > members who write and especially those affiliated with the project. > I have been quite surprised and disappointed in the attitude and > tone coming from Jim Thompson this last week and in my opinion THAT > is what reflects poorly on the project. I totally disagree. I respect people who give their opinion outright. We can flop about and sugar coat everything, try to make everyone feel fuzzy... and all that does is lead to misunderstandings and openings for more convoluted and pointless discussions. I've been a part of the open source community for over 20 years, and mostly we're a group of free thinking, well-intentioned individuals who have many irons in the fire. We know the value of our time, and thus respect the value of others' time as well. Our projects are not a place for discussions that can have no resolution: politics, religion, general conspiracy theories. I'm behind Jim on this. Regards, Adrian ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws
On Oct 12, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Thinker Rix wrote: > On 2013-10-11 22:33, Walter Parker wrote: >> Yes, you have been informed correctly. There are more than 2. According the >> World Atlas (http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm#.UlhOHVFDsnY) the number >> is someone between 189 and 196. > > No kidding! ;-) > >> But you did not answer the question asked: Name the country that you would >> move the project to and why you believe that country would do a better job? > > Why should *I* name it and why should I present ready solutions for an idea > another community member brought up? Why should anybody be in a position to > present ready solutions at this point? How about having a fruitful discussion > and find solutions together? There is no reason to build a house on sand. There is no fruitful discussion to be had when the premise is patently false. >> Then because the USA can't be trusted, who is going to replace the Americans >> on the project? > > You are mixing things up here. Just because the USA invented their tyrannous > "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to > Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act", for which they perversely coined the > euphemistic term "Patriot Act" and there fore can not be trusted anymore for > hosting anything there, why should the Americans be replaced?!?!? > >> The name and logo are owned by an American company. > > I guess, that is true, i.e. that ESF registered pfSense and it's log as a > brand name. You seem upset at this. Why? Instead of some kooky conspiracy theory that ESF could be tortured or pressured to weaken pfSense, is this the *real* issue you have? >> I doubt they want to give them up to a foreign company owned by non-Americans > > Nobody suggested that. Try thinking a bit more outside the box! > For instance: A non-profit foundation could be founded in a country outside > the USA, and the brand, hosting of the project, etc. be transferred to that > company. A board would be elected for this foundation who just a few basic > things annually to keep the foundation running. > ESF on the other side would be released of a great threat! They could > continue offering their pfSense services to their customers as usual, but > from now on nobody could come and force them to do things to pfSense since > "they have nothing to do with it”. You seem upset that ESF controls the project. Why? >> just to make it harder for the American government to pressure the project. > > Incorporating pfSense and bringing it out of the reach of US-domestic > jurisdiction would not "make it harder" but "impossible" to pressure the > project. You have provided no explanation (other than “rubber hoses”) for what form that “pressure” would take. >> If the rest of world wants to fork the project because of concerns about the >> US government, fine, but I don't think you will get buy in from ESF [the >> American company that owns the rights to the name pfSense]. > > Why to fork the code base?! No one suggested that - and no one suggested to > do things without - or even against - the key people of the ESF. Right the > opposite. It would even protect the ESF! > >> Once again, name some names. Who do you consider more trustworthy? > > I am not Jesus to hand solutions to the community on a silver platter though point in fact, Jesus didn’t hand anyone a solution. > (but surely would be available for a *constructive* and *well-disposed*, > *amicable* discussion to find solutions together!). I know of quite a lot of > countries that seem interesting for a closer analysis for this cause and > surely would propose one or another in such a constructive discussion. > > Generally, what Adrian proposed makes only sense, if the community - > including ESF - understands the threat and decides to act proactively to > fight this threat. “The community” doesn’t own the copyright on the code, nor the trademarks to the names used. Those belong to ESF. Further, you’ve hypothesized about a ‘threat’ without providing any factual basis for same. The term for this form of argument is “conspiracy theory”. Since pfSense is open source (specifically, the BSD license), “the community” (or rather “a community”) could take the decision to fork the code and create their own solution. It’s been attempted a couple times, but none of these have flourished. While I don’t encourage forks (it’s typically not good for either project), occasionally they work out (at least for a while), I don’t go out of my way to inhibit those who wish to fork. However, in any case, such a community would be prohibited from naming the result “pfSense”. > But since 33% of the ESF - namely Jim Thompson You greatly inflate my ownership interest here. > - prefers bullying, insulting, frightening and muzzling anybody who brings up > the threat that we are facing, trying to strike dead any thought as soon as > it comes up (strange, isn't it?),
Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix wrote: > On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> So asking the question is stupid >> > > On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question >> in stroking their own ego. >> > > On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> Otherwise: get off my lawn. >> I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest. >> Now that I'm back on US soil, I promise that if the later continues, I >> will kill the thread. People who hijack threads will be dealt with. >> Otherwise: STFU. >> >> Nor will I endure the besmirching of pfSense's good name and trademark. >> > > The only one who is besmirching pfSense here is: you - given that as a > co-owner of ESF you are an official representative of pfSense - and your > official communication unfortunately shows that you are a vulgarian, > plebeian, obscene, scurrilous goon, who insults, threatens, bullys, censors > and muzzles other community members, totally lacking control of himself and > any professional business manners whatsoever, let alone any constructive > discussion culture. > > To me it feels highly awkward and it is unsettling me a lot, that such an > ill-mannered, shady and dubious roughneck like you holds a key position in > the project that creates the security product that we use for protecting > our networks. > > I have no idea why highly respected Chris Buechler partnered with you, but > it might be good if you would learn a lesson from him concerning his > professionalism, seriousness and manners in his official communication. > > Bye. I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do agree. I have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading) and have always been impressed with the professionalism of most members who write and especially those affiliated with the project. I have been quite surprised and disappointed in the attitude and tone coming from Jim Thompson this last week and in my opinion THAT is what reflects poorly on the project. -Oliver ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws
On 2013-10-11 22:33, Walter Parker wrote: Yes, you have been informed correctly. There are more than 2. According the World Atlas (http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm#.UlhOHVFDsnY) the number is someone between 189 and 196. No kidding! ;-) But you did not answer the question asked: Name the country that you would move the project to and why you believe that country would do a better job? Why should *I* name it and why should I present ready solutions for an idea another community member brought up? Why should anybody be in a position to present ready solutions at this point? How about having a fruitful discussion and find solutions together? Then because the USA can't be trusted, who is going to replace the Americans on the project? You are mixing things up here. Just because the USA invented their tyrannous "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act", for which they perversely coined the euphemistic term "Patriot Act" and there fore can not be trusted anymore for hosting anything there, why should the Americans be replaced?!?!? The name and logo are owned by an American company. I guess, that is true, i.e. that ESF registered pfSense and it's log as a brand name. I doubt they want to give them up to a foreign company owned by non-Americans Nobody suggested that. Try thinking a bit more outside the box! For instance: A non-profit foundation could be founded in a country outside the USA, and the brand, hosting of the project, etc. be transferred to that company. A board would be elected for this foundation who just a few basic things annually to keep the foundation running. ESF on the other side would be released of a great threat! They could continue offering their pfSense services to their customers as usual, but from now on nobody could come and force them to do things to pfSense since "they have nothing to do with it". just to make it harder for the American government to pressure the project. Incorporating pfSense and bringing it out of the reach of US-domestic jurisdiction would not "make it harder" but "impossible" to pressure the project. If the rest of world wants to fork the project because of concerns about the US government, fine, but I don't think you will get buy in from ESF [the American company that owns the rights to the name pfSense]. Why to fork the code base?! No one suggested that - and no one suggested to do things without - or even against - the key people of the ESF. Right the opposite. It would even protect the ESF! Once again, name some names. Who do you consider more trustworthy? I am not Jesus to hand solutions to the community on a silver platter (but surely would be available for a *constructive* and *well-disposed*, *amicable* discussion to find solutions together!). I know of quite a lot of countries that seem interesting for a closer analysis for this cause and surely would propose one or another in such a constructive discussion. Generally, what Adrian proposed makes only sense, if the community - including ESF - understands the threat and decides to act proactively to fight this threat. But since 33% of the ESF - namely Jim Thompson - prefers bullying, insulting, frightening and muzzling anybody who brings up the threat that we are facing, trying to strike dead any thought as soon as it comes up (strange, isn't it?), I have no much hope that such a discussion about how to secure the future of pfSense will ever come to reality. Follow the link, which of the 188-195 countries on that list do you propose to trust more and why? I'd suggest you pick once that is not already in bed with the NSA (which includes most of major western governments, plus some of the Middle East and Far East governments). As we know by now, many western regimes are in bed with each other for surveying their own people, undermining democracy and civil rights. That is correct. The trick is that every country spies on the people of another country (which is legal) and then exchanges the data with the other country. So e.g. the USA spies on France, France on Canada, and Canada on the USA, and then they all exchange data with each other. And then - voilà - the result is that every country spies on his own people, circumventing it's own laws. In Europe there are many countries where it is officially known that they participate in this thimble-rigger trick, namely UK, Germany, France and others. But also other countries of the European Union, where it has not come up in the media that they do so - participate in this whole evil plan, since the EU has EU-wide programs in place such as INDECT which affect all members of the EU. All this is correct, BUT: It has nothing to do with our topic here! Even if you would incorporate a non-profit foundation in such a country where surveillance in place on it's own people, etc. the subject here is
Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)
Am 12.10.13 00:35, schrieb Walter Parker: Hi, > So, if I have an ALIX that I would like to upgrade, how much would I > have to increase /tmp and /var by to have the upgrade run to completion > without filling the partitions? How many Interfaces do you have. With 5 it is no problem with 11 it is. Can't tell you where the exact speperation is. The problem also occurs when the RRD data is delete before the upgrade, so the empty rrd files are to big, when 11 interfaces are used. I will try to figure out where the limit is. CU Jens ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws
On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote: So asking the question is stupid On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote: IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in stroking their own ego. On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote: Otherwise: get off my lawn. I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest. Now that I'm back on US soil, I promise that if the later continues, I will kill the thread. People who hijack threads will be dealt with. Otherwise: STFU. Nor will I endure the besmirching of pfSense's good name and trademark. The only one who is besmirching pfSense here is: you - given that as a co-owner of ESF you are an official representative of pfSense - and your official communication unfortunately shows that you are a vulgarian, plebeian, obscene, scurrilous goon, who insults, threatens, bullys, censors and muzzles other community members, totally lacking control of himself and any professional business manners whatsoever, let alone any constructive discussion culture. To me it feels highly awkward and it is unsettling me a lot, that such an ill-mannered, shady and dubious roughneck like you holds a key position in the project that creates the security product that we use for protecting our networks. I have no idea why highly respected Chris Buechler partnered with you, but it might be good if you would learn a lesson from him concerning his professionalism, seriousness and manners in his official communication. Bye. ___ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
