If email is important to your organization then the cost of a correctly configured mail server is insignificant.
Seriously, your email server can be anywhere in the world. There's no reason that you have to go through a specific ISP. Even if they're blocking port 25, you can get a different ISP to accept mail from you on a different port. Even Google offers that option.
You're a complete void of content with nothing but spamming repetition with zero capability for rational thought or counterargument sprinkled in.
So you can claim.
Of course, that is coming from the person who claims that "logic" tells them that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Allow me to quote you on that:
If Alexander Putin threatened to launch is entire arsenal of nuclear missiles at the U.S. and Europe unless someone on his staff raped a sixteen-year-old he disliked intensely, and it was clear that he both had the means to launch the missiles and the certain intent to do so, and the person had no alternative to avoid the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, I would consider the act "not evil".
That is how to correctly quote someone.
So you are mad that I do not accept your claims about how your "logic" (the same "logic" that tells you that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances)) tells you that I'm wrong.
Whatever. My point here has been to demonstrate the "logic" of the believer that results in them making claims such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
You are not the teacher. You are not the student. You are the example.
I would expect such from most companies. But from a company that sells computer security products?
And those products DEPEND upon the seed being secret?
I get the feeling that they're claim this now (MONTHS after the crack) in order to justify their failure.
Who cares if it was a single cracker or a cracker group or a nation employing crackers? If they didn't go in with gunships then it is the same in the end. A cracker got past their defenses and all the way into their vault.
Look, idiot, quoting me on what I have not denied saying and which is completely correct is something that matters only in your deluded, spamming mind.
I can quote you but you cannot quote me. That annoys you.
That is because I am demonstrating how the "logic" of the believer results in them claiming such things as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
Which has been my (oft stated) point in this thread. With you as the example.
You have profound issues with basic requirements of rational thought, this is absolutely clear.
So says the person posting that "logic" tells them that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
You may be hoping that the hundredth time you repeat what I have said, which is accurate, undenied, and unchallenged in any rational way by you, will be noticed as an "example" of "believer's logic" and somebody will support your stance, in the face of all rationality.
No.
Again, as I have often stated, my point here is to demonstrate how the "logic" of the believer results in them making claims such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies. And you are the example of such.
The hundredth time you make that claim will be the hundredth time you have publicly claimed that your "logic" tells you that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
Meanwhile, I can quote you, verbatim, about how you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
There's you playing stupid linguistic games like you saying that gravity exists, but if I say you assert that things fall if dropped, your response is "Liar! I never said that verbatim!" It's just ridiculous.
Like I said, I can quote you, verbatim. You cannot do that. All you can do is lie.
As I said, that is the "logic" of the believer which results in claims such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
And my point is to demonstrate that "logic" with you as the example.
And, there's only one logic--as everyone competent already knows, no review needed at all.
Yes, the "logic" of the believer that results in such statements as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
And my point in this thread has been to demonstrate that "logic" with you as the example. Such as your posting this:
If Alexander Putin threatened to launch is entire arsenal of nuclear missiles at the U.S. and Europe unless someone on his staff raped a sixteen-year-old he disliked intensely, and it was clear that he both had the means to launch the missiles and the certain intent to do so, and the person had no alternative to avoid the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, I would consider the act "not evil".
That is the "logic" of the believer that I'm using this thread to demonstrate.
So, explain again why users should use FLOSS instead closed-source when they have "better things to work on than someone else's code" and can buy something that works?
If the free (like speech) system does not work for that person / company then there is no reason for them to use it.
If, as you postulate, there is a closed source system "that works" then they may want to use that.
UNLESS they want to avoid any of the OTHER problems with closed source software.
Simple fact is, though, if you directly state A, and directly state B, and those lead by direct, unarguable inference to C, then C is an accurate statement of your position.
That would be "unarguable" by your "logic".
That would be the "logic" of the believer that results in statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
And it is my point in this thread to demonstrate that "logic" with you being the example. You have, repeatedly, stated that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). As well as other lies.
You cannot even substantiate your claims as to what I have posted without claiming that your "logic" proves what I did not post.
But I can quote you.
If Alexander Putin threatened to launch is entire arsenal of nuclear missiles at the U.S. and Europe unless someone on his staff raped a sixteen-year-old he disliked intensely, and it was clear that he both had the means to launch the missiles and the certain intent to do so, and the person had no alternative to avoid the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, I would consider the act "not evil".
A direct quote from you where you state that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
That is the "logic" of the believer that results in them claiming that even raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
Do you, or do you not, acknowledge this is a direct quote?
That quote does not say what you had claimed it said. Your claim was (and I will quote you verbatim):
Okay, tedium. Wrong in every way, advocate of mass murder (in certain circumstances).
That you claim that my statement that raping a child is evil is a statement saying that I "advocate mass murder (in certain circumstances)" is just another example of the "logic" of the believer.
That "logic" results in statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
You are the example of that "logic".
And, since you keep (pointlessly) repeating it, and appear to want to deal with questions of logic...
That would be the "logic" of the believer. The same "logic" that results in statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
This thread is the demonstration of that "logic" with you as the example claiming that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
Okay, so when you say "no qualifications", do you mean there are, or are not, any exceptions?
You said that you could quote me. Where is that quote? Here's the quote from you:
Sure I will.
Then do so.
Or is this another expression of the "logic" of the believer? The same "logic" that results in them claiming that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies?
Look, you just need to be basically honest with what you said and what that means according to any rational person who can use the only logic there is.
Let me guess... the "only logic there is" would be the "logic" of the believer. The same "logic" that you use when you say that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
I'll stick to my statement that raping a child is evil. And it is the "logic" of the believer that allows them to claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies. With the example of such being yourself in this thread.
Otherwise it is just another example of the "logic" of the believer that results in claims such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and lies.
Since we have clearly been talking for some time about specifically a scenario where the alternative would be a nuclear strike on the U.S. and Europe by an unbalanced Soviet autocrat, that is, mass murder, your second assertion means that in all cases ("without qualification") the preventative action would be evil.
As I have stated on many, many, many occasions.
Therefore, you by definition reject the action that would avoid the mass murder, even in that extreme scenario.
And that is the example of the "logic" of the believer. Such "logic" leads them to make statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
I quote you, verbatim. And you don't like that. You cannot quote me, verbatim, so you resort to lies.
I know, it's just that "logic" you dislike because it so persistently shows you wrong.
You can claim that it does. But I can quote you, verbatim, and you cannot quote me.
Again, it is the "logic" of the believer that results in them making statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). And lies.
Okay, tedium. Wrong in every way, advocate of mass murder (in certain circumstances).
You can make whatever claim you want to.
But I never said that. Nor would you be able to provide a quote from me showing such.
Again, the "logic" of the believer. Since you also claim that raping a child would be "not evil" (in certain circumstances) why would you not resort to lying?
Since you're reduced to having nothing valid to say and just repeating the same wrongness, now with exactly the same words, let's leave it at that.
As I have stated many times, my point in this thread is to demonstrate the "logic" of the believer.
And you are the example of that "logic". The "logic" of the believers that result in them making statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
The general case is one thing, the specific qualified scenario is another. Being willfully ignorant of how descriptions work does not alter this, and persistently referring to one as if you are addressing the other does not either.
As I have posted, raping a child is evil.
You have stated that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
That is the "logic" of the believer. Which results in them making statements such as how raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
As a generality, yes. When the qualification of a particular case is made, and that is the case at hand and under discussion, this -must- be acknowledged and responded to in its specifics.
You postulate a situation where raping a child is not evil. That is the "logic" of the believer.
I have posted that raping a child is evil. I have not added any qualification to my statement. My statement does not require any qualifications.
My point here is to demonstrate the the "logic" of the believers that result in them making statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
You stand by your useless statement that states what nobody is arguing against, and evades any real ethical decision of a scenario you should have a response to, but choose to dodge through endless repetition of the off-topic instead, that is.
Well since I say that raping a child is evil... and you say that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances)... And then you say that "nobody is arguing against" my statement...
But since my point in this thread has been to demonstrate how the "logic" of the believers is such that they make statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) I can understand how you would post that.
You are the example of the "logic" of the believers.
And thanks, once again, for demonstrating the correct logic of believers, especially with degree of sharp contrast you can uniquely provide.
That's been my (oft stated) point in this whole thread. To illustrate how the "logic" of the believers result in them making statements such as how raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
And you claim that such is "correct logic".
I will stand by my statement that raping a child is evil.
Okay, so you'd choose instead to kill millions of people, including millions of children, and choose the worst possible outcome for millions of people, over a very bad outcome for one person.
You are the one saying that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). I have quoted you verbatim on that.
And my point in this thread has been to demonstrate the "logic" of the believers that results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
You are the example of that.
I will stand by my statement that raping a child is evil.
Yes, I am. I will even quote myself. I said: "And yet I'm the one saying that raping a child is 'evil."
You are the one saying it would be "evil" -even in the extreme circumstance- where it would entail the deaths of millions, including millions of children.
And whatever you want to the end of it. I don't care. I stand by my statement that raping a child is "evil".
Meanwhile, you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances.
And that is my point. The "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
Yes, I know you cannot be counted on to honestly restate anything whatsoever, and no doubt if necessary you'd just describe it as "believer's truth" and start claiming, again with no backing, that true things aren't true if you put the word "true" in quotes.
Considering that I quote you verbatim, that is an interesting claim. I'm guessing that it stems from the "logic" of the believer.
That same "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances). Which has been my point in this thread.
Meanwhile, I'll stand by my statement that raping a child is evil.
I agree with most of the rhetoric being brandied about, but the lack of focus could be a deal breaker for the occupy movement.
Or not.
I think the first goal is identification. If you aren't part of the 1% then you are part of the 99%. The people out there are sharing their stories of being in the 99%.
The second goal stems from the first. No matter what your personal crisis / situation is, you all share the same relationship to the 1%.
After that, it gets diffuse as each category does NOT have the same solution. If you're 65 and you've lost your savings then your solution will not be the same as the 24 year old with college debt and no job.
That you advocating this alternative makes you the only evil party to this discussion, is a fact.
And yet I'm the one saying that raping a child is "evil".
It is the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
That you're irrational for thinking you need to back nothing you say and expect automatic agreement, is a fact.
You must have missed all those posts where I stated that my point was to demonstrate how the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances). And how you were the example for that.
And you still claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
That there there is no such thing as a "logic" that becomes wrong, when it's shown right and rationally uncontested, by your addition of quotation marks, is a fact.
So you have "shown" that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) to be "right and rationally uncontested".
That is further proof of my point of the "logic" of the believer.
And you still claim that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
The "debates" are now hosted by the parties themselves instead of the League of Women Voters.
Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted.
That's the best you have after you've claimed that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances)?
You've made my point for me. That the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
Logic works how it does. True statements work how they do.
That's nice. And as I've said,the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
Pointing out over and over again a true statement, does nothing but show as your "example" a true statement--and in this case, exhibit one for which you possess not the slightest capability to argue on counterindicate on any level.
And the statement that you are claiming is "true" is that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
My point in this thread is that the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances). That is my point. And you have just demonstrated it, again.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/
Beware - extreme nerdism and math.
Make sure you click on the "show topic list" in the upper right of the page.
If email is important to your organization then the cost of a correctly configured mail server is insignificant.
Seriously, your email server can be anywhere in the world. There's no reason that you have to go through a specific ISP. Even if they're blocking port 25, you can get a different ISP to accept mail from you on a different port. Even Google offers that option.
So you can claim.
Of course, that is coming from the person who claims that "logic" tells them that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Allow me to quote you on that:
That is how to correctly quote someone.
So you are mad that I do not accept your claims about how your "logic" (the same "logic" that tells you that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances)) tells you that I'm wrong.
Whatever. My point here has been to demonstrate the "logic" of the believer that results in them making claims such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
You are not the teacher.
You are not the student.
You are the example.
I would expect such from most companies. But from a company that sells computer security products?
And those products DEPEND upon the seed being secret?
I get the feeling that they're claim this now (MONTHS after the crack) in order to justify their failure.
Who cares if it was a single cracker or a cracker group or a nation employing crackers? If they didn't go in with gunships then it is the same in the end. A cracker got past their defenses and all the way into their vault.
Why was the vault available on-line like that?
I can quote you but you cannot quote me. That annoys you.
That is because I am demonstrating how the "logic" of the believer results in them claiming such things as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
Which has been my (oft stated) point in this thread. With you as the example.
So says the person posting that "logic" tells them that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
No.
Again, as I have often stated, my point here is to demonstrate how the "logic" of the believer results in them making claims such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies. And you are the example of such.
The hundredth time you make that claim will be the hundredth time you have publicly claimed that your "logic" tells you that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
You can claim that. But that is a lie as well.
Meanwhile, I can quote you, verbatim, about how you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Like I said, I can quote you, verbatim. You cannot do that. All you can do is lie.
As I said, that is the "logic" of the believer which results in claims such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
And my point is to demonstrate that "logic" with you as the example.
Yes, the "logic" of the believer that results in such statements as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
And my point in this thread has been to demonstrate that "logic" with you as the example. Such as your posting this:
That is the "logic" of the believer that I'm using this thread to demonstrate.
If the free (like speech) system does not work for that person / company then there is no reason for them to use it.
If, as you postulate, there is a closed source system "that works" then they may want to use that.
UNLESS they want to avoid any of the OTHER problems with closed source software.
That would be "unarguable" by your "logic".
That would be the "logic" of the believer that results in statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
And it is my point in this thread to demonstrate that "logic" with you being the example. You have, repeatedly, stated that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). As well as other lies.
You cannot even substantiate your claims as to what I have posted without claiming that your "logic" proves what I did not post.
But I can quote you.
A direct quote from you where you state that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
That is the "logic" of the believer that results in them claiming that even raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
And you are the example of that "logic".
That quote does not say what you had claimed it said.
Your claim was (and I will quote you verbatim):
That you claim that my statement that raping a child is evil is a statement saying that I "advocate mass murder (in certain circumstances)" is just another example of the "logic" of the believer.
That "logic" results in statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
You are the example of that "logic".
That would be the "logic" of the believer.
The same "logic" that results in statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
This thread is the demonstration of that "logic" with you as the example claiming that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
You said that you could quote me. Where is that quote? Here's the quote from you:
Then do so.
Or is this another expression of the "logic" of the believer? The same "logic" that results in them claiming that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies?
Let me guess ... the "only logic there is" would be the "logic" of the believer. The same "logic" that you use when you say that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
I'll stick to my statement that raping a child is evil.
And it is the "logic" of the believer that allows them to claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
With the example of such being yourself in this thread.
Then do so.
Otherwise it is just another example of the "logic" of the believer that results in claims such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and lies.
As I have stated on many, many, many occasions.
And that is the example of the "logic" of the believer. Such "logic" leads them to make statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) and other lies.
I quote you, verbatim. And you don't like that.
You cannot quote me, verbatim, so you resort to lies.
You can claim that it does. But I can quote you, verbatim, and you cannot quote me.
Again, it is the "logic" of the believer that results in them making statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). And lies.
And you are the example of such.
You can make whatever claim you want to.
But I never said that. Nor would you be able to provide a quote from me showing such.
Again, the "logic" of the believer. Since you also claim that raping a child would be "not evil" (in certain circumstances) why would you not resort to lying?
As I have stated many times, my point in this thread is to demonstrate the "logic" of the believer.
And you are the example of that "logic".
The "logic" of the believers that result in them making statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
As I have posted, raping a child is evil.
You have stated that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
That is the "logic" of the believer. Which results in them making statements such as how raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
You postulate a situation where raping a child is not evil. That is the "logic" of the believer.
I have posted that raping a child is evil. I have not added any qualification to my statement. My statement does not require any qualifications.
My point here is to demonstrate the the "logic" of the believers that result in them making statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Well since I say that raping a child is evil ... ... ...
and you say that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances)
And then you say that "nobody is arguing against" my statement
But since my point in this thread has been to demonstrate how the "logic" of the believers is such that they make statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) I can understand how you would post that.
You are the example of the "logic" of the believers.
That's been my (oft stated) point in this whole thread. To illustrate how the "logic" of the believers result in them making statements such as how raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
And you claim that such is "correct logic".
I will stand by my statement that raping a child is evil.
You are the one saying that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). I have quoted you verbatim on that.
And my point in this thread has been to demonstrate the "logic" of the believers that results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
You are the example of that.
I will stand by my statement that raping a child is evil.
Yes, I am. I will even quote myself. I said:
"And yet I'm the one saying that raping a child is 'evil."
And whatever you want to the end of it. I don't care. I stand by my statement that raping a child is "evil".
Meanwhile, you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances.
And that is my point. The "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
Considering that I quote you verbatim, that is an interesting claim. I'm guessing that it stems from the "logic" of the believer.
That same "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances). Which has been my point in this thread.
Meanwhile, I'll stand by my statement that raping a child is evil.
The Tea Party wants less government and more corporate freedom.
Occupy Wall Street seems to want LESS corporate freedom and more repairs to the social safety net provided by the government.
Or not.
I think the first goal is identification. If you aren't part of the 1% then you are part of the 99%. The people out there are sharing their stories of being in the 99%.
The second goal stems from the first. No matter what your personal crisis / situation is, you all share the same relationship to the 1%.
After that, it gets diffuse as each category does NOT have the same solution. If you're 65 and you've lost your savings then your solution will not be the same as the 24 year old with college debt and no job.
And yet I'm the one saying that raping a child is "evil".
It is the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
You must have missed all those posts where I stated that my point was to demonstrate how the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances). And how you were the example for that.
And you still claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
So you have "shown" that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances) to be "right and rationally uncontested".
That is further proof of my point of the "logic" of the believer.
And you still claim that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
If you vote for a third party, all you're doing is making it more likely that the candidate who is closest to your views will lose.
At least it will be that way with the current voting system in most states.
FIRST you have to change the voting rules so that a candidate you want to endorse has a chance of actually winning the election.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Voting_system
Start locally by improving the voting system in your district / state.
The "debates" are now hosted by the parties themselves instead of the League of Women Voters.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates
So they're nothing more than a forum for the candidates to issue sound bites now.
That's the best you have after you've claimed that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances)?
You've made my point for me. That the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
That's nice. And as I've said,the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
And the statement that you are claiming is "true" is that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
My point in this thread is that the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances). That is my point. And you have just demonstrated it, again.