Re: The Coalition against Personal Firewalls
- From: Volker Birk <bumens@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 May 2006 18:47:21 +0200
optikl <optikl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Volker, one thing you need not apologize for is your contributions to
challenging conventional wisdom about Internet security.
Thank you, but I didn't want to apologize for something ;-)
But I agree, that it is important to be a little bit polite and try to
explain the facts and their consequences in a way, people don't have the
feeling then, they would be called idiots or treated like this.
People who have other opinions are not idiots, but people I want to
hear. People who don't know these facts (yet), are not idiots but people
who may be convinced in a discussion.
Only people who deny or ignore the facts are idiots, if the facts are
proven. And even then we could discuss the consequences, and different
people may have different views of the consequences of the facts.
Maybe Ansgar and Sebastian could be a little bit more polite. But maybe
on the other hand I would miss their fresh and direct way ;-)
Yours,
VB.
--
At first there was the word. And the word was Content-type: text/plain
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The Coalition against Personal Firewalls
- From: Notan
- Re: The Coalition against Personal Firewalls
- References:
- The Coalition against Personal Firewalls
- From: Rod Engelsman
- Re: The Coalition against Personal Firewalls
- From: Volker Birk
- Re: The Coalition against Personal Firewalls
- From: optikl
- The Coalition against Personal Firewalls
- Prev by Date: Re: The Coalition against Personal Firewalls
- Next by Date: Re: Required ports
- Previous by thread: Re: The Coalition against Personal Firewalls
- Next by thread: Re: The Coalition against Personal Firewalls
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|