🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:29:15 -0500, Mike <no@no.dont.invalid> wrote:
>Hal Burgiss wrote in <slrn99cu2l.djb.hal@localhost.localdomain>:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:23:21 GMT, Joe King <cluelessnewbie*@home.com>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>The up side of it (if there is one) is that it just might start
>>>publicly pointing the finger at people who refuse to RTFM and take
>>>reasonable precautions to secure their systems, and others who plain
>>>just don't give a damn about what is going in or out of their
>>>system/connection.
>>
>>Catch 22. By definition these people are 'clueless', don't RTFM, and
>>don't know what is going on with their system. I doubt they would ever
>>know that they are being 'used'. Even if their harddrive fills up with
>>somebody else's stuff, they'd probably just buy a new one, or
>>whatever.
>
>Oh, so its the victims fault? Clueless they might be...so what? Do you
>know all there is to know about everything you own? Are you positive
>the vehicle you drive doesn't have a defect that could injure yourself
>or another? Trust is the key word here. How about blaming the software
>developer for the design decision, or lack thereof, for shares being
>automatically exposed to the 'net.

I am not 'blaming' anybody. Where do you get off with that? Just stating
a fact of life. What does blame have to do with it anyway? If I wanted
to start blaming someones, I would certainly spread it around. I don't
see it so black and white that it's any one entitie's fault. Or that
there is any one solution. I would say ignorance is the key word. Who
should I blame for that?

-- 
Hal B
 hal@foobox.net
 hal@burgiss.net
 hburgiss@bellsouth.net
--