Sources of security breaches (was: Trade)

[Colin Muller]

Mike Holland wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Colin Muller wrote:
> 
> > Your logic is seriously flawed, but you've already made it clear that
> > you discuss on the basis of feeling rather than logic, so I won't
> > trouble to walk you through it.
> 
> Colin,
> please unsubscribe if that is the best you can do. Christain builds a
> damned good argument, so you should have no trouble pointing out exactly
> where the flaws are. If you wish to give up, please do so gracefully. Of
> course, being good at argument doesnt mean he is right :)
>   Lets keep the personal abuse down, and the facts up, eh? As Monty Python
> so well illustrated, argument is not contradiction and name-calling.

Whoa! I wasn't intending a personal attack - I was simply trying to
avoid a long go-round which would lead nowhere - and to explain why I
was doing so. Christian had said a couple of days previously:

> I don't really have any strong evidence or argument for my
> statement but I just don't buy into the idea that most compromises are
> internal.

We were discussing the same subject, I'd made my points, Christian had
disagreed, so I made clear that I didn't "buy into" his disagreement,
but that I thought in the light of his standpoint quoted above it wasn't
worth getting into an endless loop on the subject. I don't think that
Christian's arguing this point from feeling makes him a worse person
(which is what "personal abuse" would imply) - but it does seem to make
it unlikely that our disagreements on the subject will be resolved
through logical discussion.

I apologise if clumsy wording made it appear that I was dismissing you
out of hand, Christian - that was not my intention at all. I have no
interest in dissing people.

Apologies also for the late response - I'm just now catching up on a
mail backlog.

Cheers,
Colin