[Full-Disclosure] PHC replies to criticism

From: phc@hushmail.com
Date: 11/25/02

From: phc@hushmail.com (phc@hushmail.com)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:16:13 -0800



In response to Len's administrivia...

We have decided to avoid self-defeating personal vendettas on this list and
focus on those critics of PHC who possess the ability to think clearly and make
cogent arguments. Such critics include Paul Schmehl and Steve Manzuik, perhaps
the only critics on this list who have displayed clarity of thought and the
ability to make logical and relevant arguments against what we have said.

No names will be mentioned here, but we will be ignoring the following classes
of people:

1. Those paranoid schizophrenics who make outlandish conspiracy theory claims
suggesting that PHC is a government project or that PHC has been influenced by
the government. We're not sure if these people are serious, but anyway. The
meds aren't meant to taste good.

2. Those weak-minded individuals who, as we have mentioned in a previous
sermon, resort to nothing but ad hominem attacks such as "lamers,"
"scriptkids," "newbies," and so on -- attacks they can't back up with evidence
when challenged, i.e. they ignore the challenge totally and throw out further
unsubstantiated, vaporous drivel. This makes them look like stubborn
intellectual midgets who are capable of nothing except baseless monologues.

3. Those people unable to focus on the points raised, but instead choose to go
off on a tangent with their self-promotional rants about how they are reformed
blackhats and such. The transparency of these people in their job hunting
process is truly laughable. This is a really silly thing to note here, but one
of these individuals who has been online since 1994 has called PHC "fresh
bloods," when in actual fact the majority of PHC has been online since before
then, as is clearly evident to anyone who researches old ezine releases and
knows enough about PHC to make accurate connections. As if time online
necessarily relates to "skillz" or other irrelevant crap, anyway.

4. People sending in "narc" logs that have been floating around for a long
time, not realizing that they are actually doing us a favour in vindicating us
of terrorism motives.

Well, OK, we will mention one name: the fake 'nwonknu' who also appears to be
the fake 'shiftee'. Do what you may, but you are welcome to email us and
express your grievances against us. Don't read into this as a passive
assimilation tactic, though.

As an exercise to the reader, see if you can classify the expected replies to
this post based on the classes outlined above. The person who posts the most
accurate classification attempt will be awarded op status in #phrack (yay).


Version: Hush 2.2 (Java)
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify


Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2