all software has bugs in it, there is no such thing as a completely secure application.
Not so. Computer code can be proven to be correct according to a specification. Now of course this is prohibited by effort on any kind of large or even medium scale, and furthermore you would have to not only prove your code, but also libc, the kernel, the cpu microcode, the bios, any firmware, the physical design of the motherboard, etc. However, if you do prove both your code and the platform it is running on, and the specification doesn't have any security problems (sometimes easy to establish, sometimes not), then you have a completely secure application.
You might say, yes yes, I know about all that, but you can't actually do that in practice. I would bet, though, that some of the early electronic calculators were proven correct. The people making them in the very beginning were probably interested in such things. Perhaps some apps running on MIT LISP machines were also proven (LISP is easiest to prove, and the MIT AI lab people are the type to do it), although in this case it is unlikely that the entire platform up to the app was also proven. So it is not so cut and dried as to allow you to say that there are no completely secure apps. Reasonable, useful apps today, probably none are completely secure, since I doubt that any kernels are completely secure if for no other reason. But nonetheless, it is possible to have 100% bug free, 100% secure software.
I was intending to refer only to business ethics, rather than person-to-person interactions, or even philanthropy. The strongarm, monopolistic business practices are precisely what I intended to talk about. These do harm individuals, however, so I think my remark about lack of concern for others stands. Obviously, the man does manage to live a reasonably normal life, and he does engage in philanthropy (although high profile people engaging in philanthropy purely because it improves their image is not at all unheard of, some might even say it is common.). But, other businesses that have been harmed or destroyed do mean that some people's livelihoods have gone down the drain. Stifling innovation and holding back OS development prevents good changes from coming about that might have made the difference for a large number of people between being successful (using all kinds of meanings of the word successful, not soley monetarily) and not being successful. I say that failure to consider the eventual consequences of the aforementioned strongarm, monopolistic business practices does show a lack of concern for others. Oh and yes, I would apply this to people other than Mr. Gates as well.
The notion of scarcity from economics means that when you get ahead, you're pushing someone else down. Even getting ahead by discovering a gold mine in your backyard will cause a slight drop in the overall value of gold, and so everyone else who currently has gold will find that they have ever so slightly less money than they did before. So, when looked at in that light, any kind of greed is necessarily a lack of concern for those around you, or worse, an active desire to see them fall. Of course, there are other factors to take into consideration, otherwise this line of reasoning would take us directly to communism, which I'm not intentionally advocating.
These concerns were already raised with the startup of RHIC. Nothing has happened yet (although that doesn't mean that nothing will happen). Cosmic rays, however, have much higher energies, and when they collide with other particles (for instance, molecules of our atmosphere), much higher energy densities are reached. This has been going on for billions of years, and nothing has happened yet, which suggests that the probability of LHC or RHIC causing such an event are almost certainly exceedingly small.
One might suggest that the reason that it is difficult to build a successful business is ethics. Perhaps I'm wrong, I've never performed the experiment of trying to build to separate businesses, one ethically and one like MS. Has anyone else done this and produced some results? How much easier does a complete lack of concern for one's fellow man make business building?
Leon Lederman is quite personable. I met him one day on the 15th floor of Wilson Hall at Fermilab last spring. Just one example. Perhaps it is just theorists who are testy. (This coming from an experimentalist...:)
Wow... chill dude. I'm sorry that you couldn't tell, but I was making a joke. Guess I forgot my [/sarcasm] closing tag. However, in spite of all the idealism in the world, hate speech is NOT protected by extant US law. If you make hate speech in the US, thinking that the first amendment will protect you in court, you will be in for a surprise. Libel also is not protected. Whoops, there goes another category of speech which is not free. Free speech is currently not as broad as it seems at first glance. Whether it should be that way is another matter entirely. These restrictions being "suspect" or not, the Supreme Court has in fact upheld them as not in conflict with the Constitution. OTOH, yes "shouting fire in a theater" (Schenk vs. US) has been overturned (Brandenburg vs. Ohio).
Mr. Gringich, you and Mr. Cheney can go fuck yourselves for the despicable things you have done as government officials and continue to do as that everyday specimen of deceit, the public politician.
I am no government official. Sorry, but I'm not. I don't like Newt Gingrich (or Gringich... wtf) much, nor am I a fan of Dick Cheney. Thanks for the sentiment, however.
Free speech is also about allowing me to tell Mr. Gringich to go fuck himself.
Nope. Them's fightin' words. Fightin' words aren't protected by free speech, nor is shouting fire in a theater. On a side note, I've always wanted to go into an empty theater and shout fire just for the heck of it.
Did you ever think that perhaps nobody is actually so intent on attacking the right of yadda yadda that they will kill someone in that attack? In that case, nobody will die defending it. This is fairly elementary thinking.
If you say "I will die to defend this fort" when it is under siege, then you probably will die. If you say "I will die to defend this fort" during peacetime, then you will probably die, but in bed of old age, unless the fort does come under attack at a later time. Simple when you think about it a bit, isn't it?
Of course, when you want to talk about insurgents, the Texian defenders of the Alamo are worth mentioning. There were only about 200 of them, against a Mexican force of around 6,000. In the end, the Mexicans suffered about 1,000 casualties, to the Texian 200. So each Texian casualtied (to coin a word) 4 or 5 Mexicans. A few hundred thousand insurgents only managing to kill a few thousand US soldiers is pretty poor in comparison.
What!? Who told you that RTFM stood for Read the fucking manual? Whoever told you that is a shame to our wholesome online community. RTFM stands for Read the Friendly manual. That's what my mommy told me, anyway.
You might also want to know how many houses in the area are built like tinderboxes.
The bottom line is of course "Am I more likely to have a security problem while using Database A or while using Database B?" Perhaps some studies ought to be done to determine the relationship between measurable things like number of bugs, time to patch, etc, and various user's perception (or perhaps security pros' perception) of how many security problems were actually had. Then we'd be able to actually assign some semblance of meaning to these currently utterly meaningless studies of "number of bugs". I don't think that even knowing time to patch or severity of potential exploit or such things would really tell anyone much about the bottom line as I have described it, at least not unless some real investigation of the relationship is done first.
And of course this doesn't just apply to databases, but to any sort of software which has any security consequences at all (which winds up being essentially all software).
/vertisement... Stop it.
on
Fedora Linux
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Ravi Kumar maintains a blog where he shares his thoughts related to GNU/Linux, Open Source and Free Software at linuxhelp.blogspot.com. He has also reviewed in a concise way the history of GNU/Linux.
Dear editors,
We don't want any more slashvertisements. If there is stupid crap like this in a summary or book review, or whatever, especially if it has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the submission, remove it! You are editors. You edit. That is your job. Do it. Or face the wrath...
Yes, I have read ESR's essay on asking questions, from beginning to end, at least two times that I can recall, perhaps three. It is self-serving. Yes it absolutely is. If I'm not mistaken, he practically says so. Sorry friend, but that is the reality you have to deal with. Most people you meet are in fact going to be self serving. Sucks, doesn't it? They shouldn't be, IMHO, but they are, and no feasible amount of not liking it by any number of people is likely to change that.
The people you are asking for help are often lurking on these forums for a few reasons. One is conversation. They just simply enjoy talking about technical stuff. Self serving. Another is an ego boost. When they help somebody, they feel like they know what they're talking about. Self serving. Another is boredom, seeking interesting things to do. When an interesting problem comes before this particular type of person (and I count myself among their number), it is pretty irresistible. One website I came across said that for my personality type, solving an interesting problem gives a thrill unequaled by anything, including sex. Now, I'm not sure I would go that far, but it gives you an idea. Self-serving. If you want these people to fix your problems, then you have to meet at least one, preferably all three, of the above incentives.
Of course, that is not to say that there are not other more personable and more sociable people on these forums. Many of them are in fact quite smart, knowledgeable about the systems in question, and good at what they do. However, a strikingly disproportionate number of the people who are likely to actually be capable of solving your problem are not these people. As ESR says, it might help if you think of them as slightly brain damaged.
Again, I'm sorry that it is so self-serving. However, in the situation of helping people on forums, that is simply the way things are, and are likely to remain for the forseeable future. ESR's essay reflects that, not because that is necessarily the way he feels it should be, but because that is the way it is.
Yes, but you pay the mechanic. That was what was meant by my remark about paid support contracts.
Also, I believe that I said that if you really can't understand the docs at all, you should simply say so! Say "I've tried to RTFM, and I'm not really getting anywhere, could somebody please give me more specific advice here?". That is appropriate. Expecting people you've never met who owe you nothing to tie your shoes for you is not.
Just in case you were wondering, RTFM is very rarely a flame. If someone says RTFM, chances are they know what they are talking about and the information you are seeking is in TFM. So go read it. By providing a pointer to the information, they have in fact answered your question.
Now, it may be that you lack the experience to discern what portion of TFM is the information you are seeking. If so, say so! Say that you have looked in TFM and not found an answer. Ask for help explaining specific parts of TFM, or ask for a more specific pointer to what part of TFM you should be looking in.
Reading TFM is an important skill, and one that must be acquired. If you have that skill, then there is no call for you (or anyone else, of course this entire post is directed generally) to go demanding that other people use their energy and time to do what you are perfectly capable of. If you don't have that skill, then the greatest ROI for people responding to your question comes when they encourage you to acquire that skill. If you have trouble acquiring it on your own, then generally you can still find someone who is willing to help you acquire it. But not many people want to spend their time and energy doing something that either you can do or that you should be learning to do, unless such an expenditure will help you learn to do it yourself. If you expect someone to put down little arrows on the ground in front of you when you are lost in an unfamiliar city, then you'd better have some cash in hand. Similarly, many distros offer paid support contracts.
When you spend 5 minutes saying exactly how to do something in detail, you are often setting yourself up to spend another 5 minutes saying exactly how to do something else in detail later. If someone figures out the answer themself, even if it is with guidance and aid (think Socrates), then they are much more likely to be able to figure out the next answer as well.
TFA is not about users' groups. Not at all. It is about developers and development styles. People being jerks to n00bs isn't even on TFA's radar screen. Yes this is a worthy topic, and one that should be discussed. However, here and now is not the place and time to discuss it.
Yes, I realize that users must be a part of talking about developers and development styles. However, n00bs generally are not, and furthermore, discussion of jerk-n00b relations is taking an angle on FOSS community so far from TFA that the two can't even see each other without a periscope.
Firstly, the production of solar panels is a) not cheap, and b) produces even nastier environmental crap than recycling. (And yes, in case you weren't aware, most recycling does produce some exceptionally nasty pollution, for instance the detergents used to wash paper.)
Secondly, nuclear fuel is effectively not limited. We're talking 10,000 to 5 BILLION years worth of fuel. That's plenty. Even if we up our energy usage a hundredfold, we'd still have a hundred years of nuclear fuel left at the low end of those estimates. At the high end, we'd have 50 million years left. 100 years is certainly enough time to develop fusion power sufficiently, and once we do that, our fuel amounts are even less limited.
Wind power is bad for birds. Last time I checked, birds were part of the environment too, shouldn't we be protecting them? Also it takes an enormous (and expensive!) number of turbines to even begin to come close to our current needs. Turbines, by absorbing energy from the wind, on a large scale could drastically affect the climate as well. They wouldn't so much cause a global climate change, but globally, they would cause local climate changes, if built on a sufficiently large scale.
Tidal power works by slowing down the earth's rotation. Now THAT would not be something I'd want to be responsible for in another thousand years or so. Talk about screwing up the environment! And if you think that I'm not serious, what would you have told the first people to start burning coal for fuel?
Yes, some of my arguments are a bit spurious. Potkettleblack?
True indeed. There are tons of people who are spending their entire career formulating alternative theories to Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED), which is the most precisely tested scientific theory in human history. And not only have we tested it so precisely, it has checked out just fine under these very very fine tests. If there are people who are trying to find the next big thing to replace QED, a difficult task if I've ever heard of one, then it should not come as any surprise that every other theory on the face of the planet which has not already been falsified is under similar fire.
The difference in typing speed between an average keyboard and your laptop's board may just be down to spacing and layout. I can't type at all on a laptop, but I'm quite speedy on a normal desktop board (esp. my Model M, and I'm no graybeard, my family's first computer was a 286, and that was when 286s were already old.). The difference is that most laptop boards are smaller; the distance from one key to the next is less, so my fingers overreach and I miss keys or hit two keys at once. Perhaps you've just gotten used to the smaller laptop board, and have trouble adjusting back to a fullsize desktop board.
The nostalgia really doesn't have much of anything to do with it, at least for me. I just find myself getting more and more frustrated gradually the longer I use a non-Model M board (at work, for instance), whereas I can use my Model M for hours and hours with no problem.
I'm not generally one to reply to my own posts, but honestly, who thought this was flamebait? And why? The only actually inflammatory thing I said (the very beginning) I immediately turned around and mitigated. Everything beyond that was just nice and easy logic. I hope this gets meta-moderated. Or is someone just so anti-Christian that they feel they must moderate down anything which might remotely be construed as supporting a Christian position?
If the moderator happens to read this (unlikely in the extreme, I know), would you please reply to me (in another article if you don't want to screw up your mod... Although I wish you would screw up your mod, since I obviously disagree with you) and explain?
I'm not generally a spelling nazi (well I am, but I keep it to myself), but I'm curious how you managed to make the exact same, rather odd (looking, not odd to make) mispelling of personally, twice. I suppose copy and paste would explain it, but none of the preceding and succeeding words are the same, so that makes that hypothesis rather poorly supported. Just a coincidence?
Slashdot Mirror
You might say, yes yes, I know about all that, but you can't actually do that in practice. I would bet, though, that some of the early electronic calculators were proven correct. The people making them in the very beginning were probably interested in such things. Perhaps some apps running on MIT LISP machines were also proven (LISP is easiest to prove, and the MIT AI lab people are the type to do it), although in this case it is unlikely that the entire platform up to the app was also proven. So it is not so cut and dried as to allow you to say that there are no completely secure apps. Reasonable, useful apps today, probably none are completely secure, since I doubt that any kernels are completely secure if for no other reason. But nonetheless, it is possible to have 100% bug free, 100% secure software.
I was intending to refer only to business ethics, rather than person-to-person interactions, or even philanthropy. The strongarm, monopolistic business practices are precisely what I intended to talk about. These do harm individuals, however, so I think my remark about lack of concern for others stands. Obviously, the man does manage to live a reasonably normal life, and he does engage in philanthropy (although high profile people engaging in philanthropy purely because it improves their image is not at all unheard of, some might even say it is common.). But, other businesses that have been harmed or destroyed do mean that some people's livelihoods have gone down the drain. Stifling innovation and holding back OS development prevents good changes from coming about that might have made the difference for a large number of people between being successful (using all kinds of meanings of the word successful, not soley monetarily) and not being successful. I say that failure to consider the eventual consequences of the aforementioned strongarm, monopolistic business practices does show a lack of concern for others. Oh and yes, I would apply this to people other than Mr. Gates as well.
The notion of scarcity from economics means that when you get ahead, you're pushing someone else down. Even getting ahead by discovering a gold mine in your backyard will cause a slight drop in the overall value of gold, and so everyone else who currently has gold will find that they have ever so slightly less money than they did before. So, when looked at in that light, any kind of greed is necessarily a lack of concern for those around you, or worse, an active desire to see them fall. Of course, there are other factors to take into consideration, otherwise this line of reasoning would take us directly to communism, which I'm not intentionally advocating.
These concerns were already raised with the startup of RHIC. Nothing has happened yet (although that doesn't mean that nothing will happen). Cosmic rays, however, have much higher energies, and when they collide with other particles (for instance, molecules of our atmosphere), much higher energy densities are reached. This has been going on for billions of years, and nothing has happened yet, which suggests that the probability of LHC or RHIC causing such an event are almost certainly exceedingly small.
I'm assuming that you just left out your [/sarcasm] tag, but I'll still say this for the poor people who don't know. CERN started the web.
One might suggest that the reason that it is difficult to build a successful business is ethics. Perhaps I'm wrong, I've never performed the experiment of trying to build to separate businesses, one ethically and one like MS. Has anyone else done this and produced some results? How much easier does a complete lack of concern for one's fellow man make business building?
I'd rather vote for Cohen the Barbarian.
Leon Lederman is quite personable. I met him one day on the 15th floor of Wilson Hall at Fermilab last spring. Just one example. Perhaps it is just theorists who are testy. (This coming from an experimentalist... :)
I am no government official. Sorry, but I'm not. I don't like Newt Gingrich (or Gringich... wtf) much, nor am I a fan of Dick Cheney. Thanks for the sentiment, however.
Did you ever think that perhaps nobody is actually so intent on attacking the right of yadda yadda that they will kill someone in that attack? In that case, nobody will die defending it. This is fairly elementary thinking.
If you say "I will die to defend this fort" when it is under siege, then you probably will die. If you say "I will die to defend this fort" during peacetime, then you will probably die, but in bed of old age, unless the fort does come under attack at a later time. Simple when you think about it a bit, isn't it?
Of course, when you want to talk about insurgents, the Texian defenders of the Alamo are worth mentioning. There were only about 200 of them, against a Mexican force of around 6,000. In the end, the Mexicans suffered about 1,000 casualties, to the Texian 200. So each Texian casualtied (to coin a word) 4 or 5 Mexicans. A few hundred thousand insurgents only managing to kill a few thousand US soldiers is pretty poor in comparison.
No no, the spam goes to Korea. They eat it. Yum.
What!? Who told you that RTFM stood for Read the fucking manual? Whoever told you that is a shame to our wholesome online community. RTFM stands for Read the Friendly manual. That's what my mommy told me, anyway.
You might also want to know how many houses in the area are built like tinderboxes.
The bottom line is of course "Am I more likely to have a security problem while using Database A or while using Database B?" Perhaps some studies ought to be done to determine the relationship between measurable things like number of bugs, time to patch, etc, and various user's perception (or perhaps security pros' perception) of how many security problems were actually had. Then we'd be able to actually assign some semblance of meaning to these currently utterly meaningless studies of "number of bugs". I don't think that even knowing time to patch or severity of potential exploit or such things would really tell anyone much about the bottom line as I have described it, at least not unless some real investigation of the relationship is done first.
And of course this doesn't just apply to databases, but to any sort of software which has any security consequences at all (which winds up being essentially all software).
We don't want any more slashvertisements. If there is stupid crap like this in a summary or book review, or whatever, especially if it has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the submission, remove it! You are editors. You edit. That is your job. Do it. Or face the wrath...
With love,
The Undersigned
Yes, I have read ESR's essay on asking questions, from beginning to end, at least two times that I can recall, perhaps three. It is self-serving. Yes it absolutely is. If I'm not mistaken, he practically says so. Sorry friend, but that is the reality you have to deal with. Most people you meet are in fact going to be self serving. Sucks, doesn't it? They shouldn't be, IMHO, but they are, and no feasible amount of not liking it by any number of people is likely to change that.
The people you are asking for help are often lurking on these forums for a few reasons. One is conversation. They just simply enjoy talking about technical stuff. Self serving. Another is an ego boost. When they help somebody, they feel like they know what they're talking about. Self serving. Another is boredom, seeking interesting things to do. When an interesting problem comes before this particular type of person (and I count myself among their number), it is pretty irresistible. One website I came across said that for my personality type, solving an interesting problem gives a thrill unequaled by anything, including sex. Now, I'm not sure I would go that far, but it gives you an idea. Self-serving. If you want these people to fix your problems, then you have to meet at least one, preferably all three, of the above incentives.
Of course, that is not to say that there are not other more personable and more sociable people on these forums. Many of them are in fact quite smart, knowledgeable about the systems in question, and good at what they do. However, a strikingly disproportionate number of the people who are likely to actually be capable of solving your problem are not these people. As ESR says, it might help if you think of them as slightly brain damaged.
Again, I'm sorry that it is so self-serving. However, in the situation of helping people on forums, that is simply the way things are, and are likely to remain for the forseeable future. ESR's essay reflects that, not because that is necessarily the way he feels it should be, but because that is the way it is.
Yes, but you pay the mechanic. That was what was meant by my remark about paid support contracts.
Also, I believe that I said that if you really can't understand the docs at all, you should simply say so! Say "I've tried to RTFM, and I'm not really getting anywhere, could somebody please give me more specific advice here?". That is appropriate. Expecting people you've never met who owe you nothing to tie your shoes for you is not.
Just in case you were wondering, RTFM is very rarely a flame. If someone says RTFM, chances are they know what they are talking about and the information you are seeking is in TFM. So go read it. By providing a pointer to the information, they have in fact answered your question.
Now, it may be that you lack the experience to discern what portion of TFM is the information you are seeking. If so, say so! Say that you have looked in TFM and not found an answer. Ask for help explaining specific parts of TFM, or ask for a more specific pointer to what part of TFM you should be looking in.
Reading TFM is an important skill, and one that must be acquired. If you have that skill, then there is no call for you (or anyone else, of course this entire post is directed generally) to go demanding that other people use their energy and time to do what you are perfectly capable of. If you don't have that skill, then the greatest ROI for people responding to your question comes when they encourage you to acquire that skill. If you have trouble acquiring it on your own, then generally you can still find someone who is willing to help you acquire it. But not many people want to spend their time and energy doing something that either you can do or that you should be learning to do, unless such an expenditure will help you learn to do it yourself. If you expect someone to put down little arrows on the ground in front of you when you are lost in an unfamiliar city, then you'd better have some cash in hand. Similarly, many distros offer paid support contracts.
When you spend 5 minutes saying exactly how to do something in detail, you are often setting yourself up to spend another 5 minutes saying exactly how to do something else in detail later. If someone figures out the answer themself, even if it is with guidance and aid (think Socrates), then they are much more likely to be able to figure out the next answer as well.
Required reading (or it should be): http://catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
TFA is not about users' groups. Not at all. It is about developers and development styles. People being jerks to n00bs isn't even on TFA's radar screen. Yes this is a worthy topic, and one that should be discussed. However, here and now is not the place and time to discuss it.
Yes, I realize that users must be a part of talking about developers and development styles. However, n00bs generally are not, and furthermore, discussion of jerk-n00b relations is taking an angle on FOSS community so far from TFA that the two can't even see each other without a periscope.
Firstly, the production of solar panels is a) not cheap, and b) produces even nastier environmental crap than recycling. (And yes, in case you weren't aware, most recycling does produce some exceptionally nasty pollution, for instance the detergents used to wash paper.)
Secondly, nuclear fuel is effectively not limited. We're talking 10,000 to 5 BILLION years worth of fuel. That's plenty. Even if we up our energy usage a hundredfold, we'd still have a hundred years of nuclear fuel left at the low end of those estimates. At the high end, we'd have 50 million years left. 100 years is certainly enough time to develop fusion power sufficiently, and once we do that, our fuel amounts are even less limited.
Wind power is bad for birds. Last time I checked, birds were part of the environment too, shouldn't we be protecting them? Also it takes an enormous (and expensive!) number of turbines to even begin to come close to our current needs. Turbines, by absorbing energy from the wind, on a large scale could drastically affect the climate as well. They wouldn't so much cause a global climate change, but globally, they would cause local climate changes, if built on a sufficiently large scale.
Tidal power works by slowing down the earth's rotation. Now THAT would not be something I'd want to be responsible for in another thousand years or so. Talk about screwing up the environment! And if you think that I'm not serious, what would you have told the first people to start burning coal for fuel?
Yes, some of my arguments are a bit spurious. Potkettleblack?
True indeed. There are tons of people who are spending their entire career formulating alternative theories to Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED), which is the most precisely tested scientific theory in human history. And not only have we tested it so precisely, it has checked out just fine under these very very fine tests. If there are people who are trying to find the next big thing to replace QED, a difficult task if I've ever heard of one, then it should not come as any surprise that every other theory on the face of the planet which has not already been falsified is under similar fire.
The difference in typing speed between an average keyboard and your laptop's board may just be down to spacing and layout. I can't type at all on a laptop, but I'm quite speedy on a normal desktop board (esp. my Model M, and I'm no graybeard, my family's first computer was a 286, and that was when 286s were already old.). The difference is that most laptop boards are smaller; the distance from one key to the next is less, so my fingers overreach and I miss keys or hit two keys at once. Perhaps you've just gotten used to the smaller laptop board, and have trouble adjusting back to a fullsize desktop board.
The nostalgia really doesn't have much of anything to do with it, at least for me. I just find myself getting more and more frustrated gradually the longer I use a non-Model M board (at work, for instance), whereas I can use my Model M for hours and hours with no problem.
I'm not generally one to reply to my own posts, but honestly, who thought this was flamebait? And why? The only actually inflammatory thing I said (the very beginning) I immediately turned around and mitigated. Everything beyond that was just nice and easy logic. I hope this gets meta-moderated. Or is someone just so anti-Christian that they feel they must moderate down anything which might remotely be construed as supporting a Christian position?
If the moderator happens to read this (unlikely in the extreme, I know), would you please reply to me (in another article if you don't want to screw up your mod... Although I wish you would screw up your mod, since I obviously disagree with you) and explain?
I'm not generally a spelling nazi (well I am, but I keep it to myself), but I'm curious how you managed to make the exact same, rather odd (looking, not odd to make) mispelling of personally, twice. I suppose copy and paste would explain it, but none of the preceding and succeeding words are the same, so that makes that hypothesis rather poorly supported. Just a coincidence?