A Bridge Over Troubled Waters
Originally posted by The Revenant
Or shall we say water under the bridge and be smiley again?
Sure, let's go with that. And I'm not being sarcastic.
While I think your fixation on my being a mod is misplaced (I'm a member first, and I hope it's obvious that I'm speaking as one in this case), I
can agree that there are much better ways for me to make my point, and without my own
brand of puffery. I don't offer an apology for
expressing my views, but I do offer an apology for expressing them in such a snarky manner. That's not just unpleasant for you, but for anyone
reading, and for that I'm truly sorry.
As for the rest, I can appreciate putting me on the defensive as a debate tactic, but it really doesn't bring us any closer to an understanding on
the topic. Without going point by point in classic USENET cascade fashion, I think it would be best to focus on our points of contention.
Getting first to the "threat" issue, I can see where that could be construed as not a warning of action on your part, but on the part of others. You
may find this surprising, but that's exactly how I took it, and it was to that vague sort of threat I was speaking. I really do think it's
overblown, and concerns on that score are unnecessary.
That's because ATS, just by virtue of what it is and stands for, already has a big bullseye painted on it. We're not just the object of threats, but
active attempts to shut us down, day in and day out, 365 days a year. Whether port scans, injection hacks, Denial-Of-Service attacks, account
privilege tweaking, stalking the admins (both on or off the Internet) or just good old-fashioned doorknob jiggling, ATS is under constant assault.
While I don't think we need to invite more trouble, there's already no shortage of it, and anyone truly interested in bringing ATS down should take
a number, because the line is long.
Unless I'm missing something, I think we're probably on the same page about the whole "threat" issue, and can consider that settled.
As for the rest, a nicer way to broach that is to say that I don't understand the apparent contradiction between saying Anonymous can't be defined,
telling people they don't know what it is, and then defining it.
Just not seeing that.
But at this point, it probably doesn't matter, and can be considered something we can agree to disagree on. God knows there's no shortage of that
around here, and just as well.
So if you're with me on this genuinely being water under the bridge, I'm totally okay with that.