[privacy] eh? [was: profanity]

Fri Dec 21 11:50:53 CST 2007

Infringing on our rights? Hardly... I have the right to participate in a
decent list.

About the budget:
What drives me nuts is that if Department X has a 2007 budget of $10
million, and requests an increase of $20 million for fiscal 2008 for a total
budget of $30 mil, then congress approves $15 Million increase for a total
budget of $25 mil, they scream stating that their budget was cut 25%... uh
hello? It was increased by $15m when they requested $20m, that is 5m less
than requested, but should not be EXPECTED. Quoth the article: "Department
of Energy Office of Science, which received $342 million less than expected"
awwwww... what is their existing budget, then what did they request?
Whatever was approved was an increase that was $342m less than they had
requested. So sad!

Then reactionary know-nothing idiots read these and start posting their
useful idiot phrases all over... it provides further evidence that half the
people you know are below average... and know I know which half they belong
to.

Thank you,

Joel Helgeson

-----Original Message-----
From: Gadi Evron [mailto:ge at linuxbox.org] 
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:01 PM
To: Larry Seltzer
Cc: privacy digest mailing list
Subject: [privacy] eh? [was: profanity]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> What the hell is all this doing on a privacy mailing list?  Take it
> Full-Disclosure where chaos reigns

Thanks for peer moderating. I just saw it now and sent a "stern warning" 
in, but the more I see the subject line line the more pissed I am.

I mean, I am no Bush lover (doesn't mean I'm an hater, either) and I am 
not an American, but come on?

1. He is the president of your country (generic "your") show some 
backbone).
2. I am known to use profanity and colour up life, and I am known to voice 
opinions when they are not popular, but this "fuck Bush" subject line is 
just offensive, pointless, and shows what a fuck-up you (generic "you") 
are.
3. Profanity in the subject line is now disallowed, yes, I am infringing 
on your rights, this is basically me stating rules.

Dude, Brian, you are both no longer welcome on the privacy mailing list. I 
don't care who started it.

 	Gadi.

> Larry Seltzer
> eWEEK.com Security Center Editor
> http://security.eweek.com/
> http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/
> Contributing Editor, PC Magazine
> larry.seltzer at ziffdavisenterprise.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dude VanWinkle [mailto:dudevanwinkle at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:23 PM
> To: Brian Loe
> Cc: privacy digest mailing list
> Subject: Re: [privacy] Fuck Bush
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 5:50 PM, Brian Loe <knobdy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Dec 20, 2007 4:44 PM, Dude VanWinkle <dudevanwinkle at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Keyes isn't listed either - and he's probably my favorite, now
>>>> that he's joined.
>>>
>>> I will have to check him out, as this is the first I have heard of
> him..
>>>
>>> -JP
>>>
>>
>> You won't like him. Well, maybe you will. While he states as fact that
>
>> he's the most conservative Republican candidate in the race, which he
>> is, that makes him pretty libertarian. Think Ron Paul + religion -
>> conspiracy theories - POSSIBLE white trash ties - POSSIBLE antisemite.
>>
>> BUT, if you can find video of the debate he was in - I believe in SC -
>
>> where he argued why the states should KEEP their confederate
>> flags...wow, inspiring.
>
> Well, I instantly don't like anyone who believes that humans are
> "special" and have a omnipotent and omniscient deity who cares about
> what whether I shit or get off the pot (see douglas adams), but I will
> still give it a try..
>
> You gotta admit, from a science standpoint, the following would be a
> good thing:
>
> a.) Will work to "Restore scientific integrity by supporting the
> independent work of government scientists, promoting innovation and
> medical research, and by returning to evidence-based decision making."
>
> b.) Ban "political appointees from altering or removing scientific
> conclusions in government publications without any legitimate basis for
> doing so."
>
> c.) Prohibit "unwarranted suppression of public statements by government
> scientists."
>
> <removed>
>
> e.) Restore "the science advisor's direct access to the President."
>
> f.) Re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment.
>
> g.) Strengthen "whistle blower protections for those who disclose
> potential instances of political interference with science."
>
> h.) Direct "department and agency heads to safeguard against political
> pressure that threatens scientific integrity and to promote transparency
> in decision making."
>
> The person saying them may be a douchebag and a liar, but they are good
> ideas..
>
> -JP
> _______________________________________________
> privacy mailing list
> privacy at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy
> _______________________________________________
> privacy mailing list
> privacy at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy
>
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy at whitestar.linuxbox.org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy