I am responding to Adam Todd's message, responding to one of mine:
Re: [LINK] Let's Sue Microsoft [Was: Code Red puts Microsoftin hot
seat]
Adam,
You just reminded my why I vowed never to read your messages on Link
again. I was not alone - many other people did the same, I am sure. I
normally do not read your stuff - but in this case, it was possible
that you were responding to one of mine, so I gave you the benefit of
the doubt. Silly me.
You wrote:
> I can only IMAGINE what might have happened if I were to detail
> publicly the RedHat bug I copped so much flakt from so few individual
> last year. It was thanks to the advice form the MANY to keep my
> mouth shut that RedHat itself still exists as a product today. How
> long until the exploit is found is something I can't guess, and no
> doubt when people drop their ego (Microsoft included) and start
> working together rather than hamming each other in the corner, these
> exploit problems will cease to be problems.
You are repeating the same allegations which caused such trouble and
even resulted in press coverage (as if your allegations might be true)
whenever it was last year.
The logic is inexorable:
IF you are committed to a better world, in which software is
more reliable, and people are protected from any existing bugs
(as you claim to be).
AND IF you believe you have found a problem with a program.
THEN It is your duty to report the problem to the vendor/author
*immediately*.
There is no other honourable option.
Having done so (which, has been stated by Red Hat representatives, you
didn't) you should then expect the vendor, within a few days, to either:
1 - Convince you that your bug report has no substance.
or
2 - Show to you and the world that they have identified the problem,
fully characterised it, documented all the risks, produced an
update to solve the problem and made all this publicly available
If they fail to do one of the above, then your only honourable option
(since hackers could have found the fault and could be developing
exploits or compromising systems right how - you wouldn't necessarily
know) is go public on BugTraq with a full description of everything you
know about the bug. That is a moderated list and is central to the
efforts of all decent people to improve software and protect computer
systems and personal privacy from attack. The moderator there is well
placed to judge the merits of the problem you report and whether or not
it is wise to publicise it on BugTraq.
To my understanding, your allegations have never been proved in any way
at all. You have provided no details or evidence whatsoever - despite
repeated requests. Your reference to multiple people who support you
has never been proven either.
Because this is a respected, public, well-archived list - with lurking
journos (who aren't always smart enough to see the pattern of tangled
and vexatious thinking which I believe underlies most of your output),
your statements on this list gain far more credibility than they
deserve.
Specifically, your statements on Link gain credibility and exposure
because we tolerate your presence on this list.
It is my impression that you are unique in contributors to this list in
having created far more noise than signal.
Link is Tony's list. Its up to him how he directs discussion, and how
he controls membership. He has been very trusting running a
high-profile list with no moderation or membership criteria. Everyone
but you (and a few spammers) have respected Tony's trust in humanity.
You have deliberately abused his trust - and ours.
The generally high signal to noise ratio of Link is well known, and
rather remarkable. It is a testimony to all contributors to list except
yourself.
I believe you *use* the energy we put into link as an accellerant for
your own ejaculations into the minds of other people. That's your game
- you like inserting parts of yourself (things you dream up) into the
minds of others. I think it is an appalling game, since it is evident
that your mind is capable of following higher principles. You
demonstrate your understanding of higher principles and the better
thinking of other people in the sophisticated way you deliberately
destroy those principles and fight that clearer thinking with your own
perverse injections.
You trade on the good reputation of Link. You use and sully the good
reputation developed by all other members of this list since 1993.
I believe that Link is an important discussion forum. What we discuss
here has the potential to make life better for all Australians, and to
exert positive influence the world over.
There are many powerful reasons why I think that Link should be
protected from the kinds of writing which you contribute.
You should have your own mailing list - and periodically (like once
every 6 months) post to link and other mailing lists inviting people to
join you. Let people comment on those lists then on your character and
infamous history, and on how they are happy you are not a member of
those lists any more.
It is the same in other mailing lists - any public mailing list without
moderation is beholden to every single disturbed, malicious or erratic
individual who chooses to plague it. After a while, most members get
to know who the idiot is and studiously ignore that person. There is a
jabbering, intelligent idiot known as Antiorp (his latest incarnation is
integer@www.god-emil.dk) who consistently spams a number of Digital
Signal Processing lists with his unreadable cryptic off-topic doggerel
(though, like you, he is reputed to very occasionally say something of
value). He has been at it for three or more years - and I recall
hearing reports of how that one person (due to faulty or absent
moderation on those lists) caused the demise of one or more mailing
lists. I recall reading the same about you - an entire list which
closed itself down, and re-established itself with a new rule: that you
could not be a member. (This is an unsubstantiated allegation from me,
since I don't remember the details - but I think it was an Australian
ISP list a few years ago. I will cheerfully withdraw my accusation and
give you my apologies in public if no-one substantiates what I have just
stated in the next week.)
But you are worse than an obscurantist neo-fascist gadfly like Antiorp.
You don't just trade off, disrupt and destroy the good energy of this
mailing list. You use the platform of Link to posture in public and
launch extremely serious allegations about a commercial product which
millions of people trust their businesses and personal information to -
Red Hat Linux. By using the credibility *we* give you by foolishly
tolerating your presence on Link, you insert your tripe into the minds
of people far and wide by getting your corrosive drivel archived on this
list and printed in papers - where the credibility of Link is cited as
evidence of the seriousness of your false allegations.
For the sake of Link, its members, the important matters we discuss
here, and for the sake of Red Hat and any other company, product or
person you might target in the future, I believe you should be prevented
from posting to this list entirely. Alternatively, if it suits Tony,
perhaps you could be permitted to post on a a strictly moderated basis.
This sort of thing is presumably easy to set up on a modern mailing list
like GNU Mailman. I don't know how easy it is on Tony's Majordomo. But
anyway, I think you thoroughly deserve to be given the bums-rush and
banished from this good list forever.
I run a busy, serious, 1150 member mailing list of my own. Every now
and again, a miscreant like you makes me realise how important it is to
have a strong, principled moderation policy.
If Link was my list, you would have been banned long ago - I generally
don't read your stuff, but your inflammatory, damaging and *entirely*
unsubstantiated allegations about a security problem with Red Hat Linux
would have given me no other option.
- Robin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:10:03 EST