Re: [Full-Disclosure] More on Dan Geer

From: Keith W. McCammon (keith-list_at_mccammon.org)
Date: 09/30/03

  • Next message: Stormwalker: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] More on Dan Geer" 
    To: madsaxon <madsaxon@direcway.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:42:08 -0400

    And with that I certainly agree. However, the unfortunate result in
    cases such as this, is that everyone suffers indirectly, even though
    they are obviously removed from the action.

    It would be nice if the clowns at @stake responsible for this would just
      take themselves quietly out of the loop, in the same manner as was
    done to someone else...

    madsaxon wrote:
    > At 12:32 PM 9/30/03 -0400, Keith W. McCammon wrote:
    >
    >> A corporate entity is just a collection of individuals. And in this
    >> case, those individuals have (it seems) a great deal of influence
    >> within that entity. Thus, for the purposes of this argument, the two
    >> can be treated almost interchangeably.
    >
    >
    > OK, let me phrase it a different way. I know some of the people
    > involved, even at the higher levels of the corporation, who
    > don't share in the official @Stake stance. In the same way
    > that I don't necessarily blame Microsoft's employees for the
    > decisions of Gates, et al., I don't want to see everyone at @Stake
    > automatically crucified for this unfortunate action.
    >
    > m5x
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  • Next message: Stormwalker: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] More on Dan Geer"