response 103 of 145:

Oct 3 20:43 UTC 2000

I guess 102 was for John, since he seems to be the one trying to drag me into
this. =} (Reading back...)

#99 was the second worst atempt to substantiate an argument I've seen this
week.  Considering the worst was *yawn* *snort*, I wouldn't take it as a good
sign.

(This is my official return to Peanut Gallery comments...)

response 105 of 145:

Oct 3 20:54 UTC 2000

        Please clarify in which of these posts I posted inaccurate information
displaying an assumption about the case:

#56 of 102: by Silent Tristero (jazz) on Fri, Sep 29, 2000 (11:54):
 
        I don't entirely buy the explanation that a system's security staff
 are responsible for any security compromises, to the point to which the
script
 kiddie is off the hook, any more than a warehouse's security staff is
 responsible to the point to which a cat burglar is off the hook.  Especially
 when it comes to freenets, it's not always possible to patch an exploitable
 program or OS immediately, and sometimes it's not possible for a matter of
 months.  People with nothing to do and a subscription to bugtraq will always
 be faster.

#75 of 102: by Silent Tristero (jazz) on Sun, Oct  1, 2000 (12:21):
 
        None of the infrastructure of the internet is quite as impressive as
 it's meant to be (and Worldcomm's headquarters are nowhere near as cool as
 the office that the young-looking Generation D fellow scooters into).
 
        Have to say I'm not terribly sympathetic for someone who gains root
 and then immediately sets about destroying a system.  Had he merely done it
 to count coup, and send mail to staff or something along those lines, that'd
 be one thing, but deliberately destroying other people's work isn't playing
 very nice.

#80 of 103: by Silent Tristero (jazz) on Mon, Oct  2, 2000 (10:25):
 
        The time to repair isn't really relevant.  If you start a fire in a
 warehouse and the warehouse puts out the fire because it was properly
equipped
 with a fire extinguishing system, it's still arson.  But in this case, it
was
 about a month of volunteer and unpaid effort.

#88 of 103: by Silent Tristero (jazz) on Tue, Oct  3, 2000 (10:22):
 
        I can't think of a way to encourage volunteers to spend all of their
 free time monitoring rootshell and bugtraq for the patches to all of the
 problems that crop up, the way some script kiddies do, Beady.  Can you?

#90 of 103: by Silent Tristero (jazz) on Tue, Oct  3, 2000 (10:29):
 
        Uhm, he really didn't mention anything other than that the physical
 hardware wasn't damaged, and that the intruder hopscotched to UofMd.

#92 of 103: by Silent Tristero (jazz) on Tue, Oct  3, 2000 (13:34):
 
        It just might have something to do with attitudes like "all you dumb
 mother fuckers".

#96 of 103: by Silent Tristero (jazz) on Tue, Oct  3, 2000 (14:43):
 
        Where did brighn (or myself for that matter) ever say or even imply
 that "it could have been avoided"?
 
        Last I recall, I was actually supporting the argument that vandalism
 damages a system beyond apparent replacement costs, and that it was unlikely
 that even a full-time security staff could be expected to meet all possible
 contingencies, let alone an unpaid volunteer staff working in their spare
 time.

#98 of 103: by Silent Tristero (jazz) on Tue, Oct  3, 2000 (15:45):
 
        M-net was, at the time, wearing a tight red dress and "fuck me" pumps,
 and therefore, deserved whatever it got.

#100 of 103: by Silent Tristero (jazz) on Tue, Oct  3, 2000 (16:18):
 
        You've proven your command of foul language, now let's see if you have
 a working knowledge of being able to substantiate your point and
differentiate
 between fact and opinion.

        In total, I've expressed the following about the case:

* Willard would make a good witness for the Defense.
* It took about a month to get m-net back up.
* M-Net staff are unpaid volunteers.
* JerryR hasn't presented any counter
* I do not believe that it is resonable to expect staff members to have
prepared for
  every possible contingency.
* M-Net occasionally wears lingerie.
* JP2 can use foul language in a post on GREX.

        Which one of these is inaccurate?

        I'll concede about the lingerie bit.

response 107 of 145:

Oct 3 20:57 UTC 2000

        #105 missed a bit of what I was trying to write - but it's been
corrected.  JerryR has, since my last posting, presented one factual element
which he considers to have been left out of the discussion.

response 109 of 145:

Oct 3 22:02 UTC 2000

Well, the only elements of the crime that I've seen mentioned either here or
in the paper were that m-net was hacked into and that the alleged hacker used
his connection to m-net to get to the university of maryland. other than that,
i haven't seen any other details. jerryr, what else is there? i mean, i
haven't really seen you telling us anything other than that (and i just went
back through the whole item to check what was said).

response 111 of 145:

Oct 4 06:05 UTC 2000

So what's the deal with all the doubled posts?
And, hey boys, don't fight!
Anyway, so far you all agree:
It's not to be expected that a free system will be totally secure.
All users should be responsible for themsleves.
VANDALism is wrong, but it should not expose the VANDAL to anal rape by
dangerous felons.
Let's discuss appropriate actions for for vandalism, and maybe we can solve
the problem.

And yes, as someone previously said, there are folks here who have gotten into
places they were not invited to.
So? Did they trash anythiing or just poke around?
What do you see as the difference?
mrow.

response 113 of 145:

Oct 4 13:36 UTC 2000

re: #109  you are correct.  i have not posted any details, nor will i.  i was
attempting to save a lot of people energy because they were trying to find
ways to let this miscreant slide out from under whatever he did to m-nut. 
and yes, the university of maryland is involved.  that should be sufficient
to understand that the scope of the charges goes beyond m-nut.

i suggest you contact the prosecutors for further details or show up for this
moron's next court date.

response 115 of 145:

Oct 4 17:12 UTC 2000

#98 certainly sounds like sarcasm, especially in situ (John had previously
spoken a few paragraphs about how systems SHOULDn't be held accountable for
faulty security if that security's maliciously breached, which runs counter
to the blame-the-victim mentality depicted in #98).

(er, SHOULDN'T, wrong epmhasis ;} )

If nothing else, twinkie has implied that he doesn't get rhetorical subtlety.

If that doesn't speak volumes about his intelligence, I don't know what does.
;}

response 117 of 145:

Oct 4 18:07 UTC 2000

I have to confess, though I consider myself cautious and generous in forming
opinions of people based on their responses, #114 baffles me. If you *do*
understand rhetorical subtlety, what could your point possibly be?  I'm really
curious about this.  Perhaps I'm more familiar with posts by jazz than you
are, or perhaps the coincidence of my reading pattern gave me a better feeling
of context, but it seemed really obvious to me that #98, to which I assume 
you're referring in #114, was sarcastic.  Even without your claim that you
understand rhetorical subtlety, I'd have a lot of trouble believing that
you failed to see it as anything other than sarcastic; I have to assume
that you understood it not to contain jazz's real opinion at the time you
wrote #114.  
  It would make sense, and even be fairly clever, if in #114 you were
actually agreeing with jazz, and poking fun at people who disagree with him
by implying that they're so incapable of recognizing rhetorical subtlety as
to think that #98 contains an actual opinion of jazz's -- but from other
things you've said, I really doubt that was your intention.  I confess,
though, that I haven't been able to come up with any other possible intentions
that could logically have motivated #114.  

response 119 of 145:

Oct 4 18:48 UTC 2000

#116> Um, how can you criticize a post that was in essence identical to your
own, unless you mean to be criticizing yourself as well?

response 121 of 145:

Oct 4 19:46 UTC 2000

Actually, what you said was:
 I gotta make a note of that cookie trick.  But, all you dumb mother fuckers
 seem to be forgetting what actually happened.  Well, except for jerryr.
  
Which entails, among other things:
 Jerryr doesn't seem to be forgetting what actually happened.

Which doesn't actually lead to either #118 or #120, necessarily.
 
#118> Twink never kids. He's dead serious. Trust me on this.

response 123 of 145:

Oct 4 20:49 UTC 2000

Well, especially since Eminem isn't from South Lyon...