On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 06:55 -0800, Brian T. Brunner wrote:
> This concurs with my asserted point: e-mail is a personal skill.
If I was being paid to provide help here, I would NOT be providing it in
e-mail.
> Slightly beyond your grasp? Who, pray tell, is my attacker?
Dude, I have _never_ asked you to explain yourself on RBAC/MAC. That
was _other_ people. Please do _not_ attribute what _they_ said to me.
I just said that I _disagree_ with your view that RBAC/MAC makes no
sense in some environments you work in. That's all. Why you have to
assert for me, for others, etc... in an "absolutist" view has been
_my_problem_ with your statements.
What you do for _your_ networks is what _you_ do. Please, please re-
read what *I* said and what *OTHERS* said and do not confuse them. I am
_not_ "attacking you."
> YAYYY!
Huh? So you say that functionality is all that matters, and you don't
care if there is any compromise of the system as long as it works?
That's basically how I put it, and if you concur, that's fine by me.
> I've passed a cognitive coherence test from somebody
> whose methods of presentation in e-mail are sufficiently poor
> that I SIMPLY DON'T CARE whether I pass his tests.
As I said, I am not here to judge what you do. But I did not like your
belief that some of us who configure RBAC/MAC do it for no reason.
> Once again, I depart from this conversation.
Obviously because you can't differentiate between what *I* say and what
*OTHERS* say.
That too is a cognitive coherence test that you seem to have
_failed_repeatedly_ in your responses in this thread. I should know, I
do it to at times, but at least I admit it.
I guess that's why some people just piggyback everything that is said to
me, _regardless_ if I said it or not -- because I'll admit to some
things. So they hope other people have poor comprehension skills.
The old "moderation" thread comes to mind. But remember, not everyone
is dumb here. I would argue a great majority have better comprehension
skills than you or I.
