On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:46:45 BST, n3td3v said: > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:27 PM, . <entropeviable@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Die in a fire. > That would make you a terrorist for telling him to die in a fire? Only if you stretch the definition of "terrorist" so far as to render it useless for anything. A terrorist would be one who *sets* the fire, with the possibility that somebody dies in it, such that it terrorizes the target group. Note that this doesn't even include all arsonists - those who burn down buildings for insurance fraud and don't particularly care who gets cooked, and those who burn down buildings because they want the specific person inside dead don't count. Those who burn down buildings to send a message "Your building (might|will) be next" however *are* terrorists. At best, he's in violation of some statute against hate speech. And if you Google for the phrase "die in a fire", the first hit is: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=die+in+a+fire It's pretty clear that it's an Internet meme, rather than a literal request that the person go do so. Though I do have to admit that your continued attempts to out-stupid the entire Internet definitely make people think of you in sense #4 of the URL. The fact that somebody as unclued as yourself allegedly has one of the biggest security groups around is a sad statement on the state of security these days, and explains *why* groups like SANS are needed - so the people who are even less clued than you have a fighting chance to find their ass with both hands and a roadmap. So quit dissin' the SANS crew till you're doing more for security than they are...
Attachment:
pgphWt0Jy0qPN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/