funsec mailing list archives
Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?
From: John Bambenek <bambenek.infosec () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 19:37:31 -0500
I'm curious... do you know anything about homeschooling? For instance, home schooling parents are, on average, more educated than the average parent. Many times, they are more educated than the average teacher. Or that home school kids participate in more extracurricular activities than non-homeschoolers? Of course, there is also test scores... But by all means, continue using your stereotype that has no connection to reality. Kinda like what Beck and Limbaugh are known to do from time to time. ;) Nick FitzGerald wrote:
Valdis Kletnieks to Rob Thompson:this as sheer laziness and quite frankly it's rather pathetic. Passing the buck isn't okay. We count on the schools to raise our kids and the ISP to police the interwebs. Bullshit!It may come as a surprise to you - but a large number of people *do* count on the schools to do a large part of the educating and socializing of the young ones. There's an awful amount of stuff that kids learn in school that parents are *not* in a good position to teach - everything from Egyptian history to how to play well with others on a softball team. Might want to pick a better analogy - the days when we could all homeschool our kids are *long* gone, if they ever existed at all...)You're "debating" a Class A moron. He actually threw "Guns don't kill people, people kill people???" at me as if it meant something, so he probably _is_ in the vanishingly small group of folk who not only believe home-schooling is more than adequate, but cannot be swayed from it by informed debate... Folk at this level of intellectual development are at the heart of the "birthers" movement, parent people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and are the butt of jokes from folk in developed nations.For that matter, our entire economic system only works because of passing the buck - every time you use a credit card, or write a check, you're passing the buck to somebody else. And even using cash rather than bickering and bartering how many goats that pair of shoes is worth is passing the buck... ;) Bottom line - unless you live off the grid, in a house you built with your own two hands using tools you manufactured yourself and material you gathered yourself, "passing the buck isn't okay" is just a tad hypocritical...Yep -- but (sadly) you live in the country where the greatest proportion of folk who don't understand that are not classified as criminally insane. I guess that's what you get for starting off your mass-immigration-based population with the looney religious rejects of the United Kingdom which you later "embellished" that with the great unwashed of most of the rest of the world... Regards, Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities?, (continued)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? der Mouse (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Rob Thompson (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? der Mouse (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? John Bambenek (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? David M Chess (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? John Bambenek (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Ned Fleming (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? der Mouse (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Paul M Moriarty (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? Nick FitzGerald (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? der Mouse (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? John Bambenek (Sep 08)
- Re: ruling: liability for providers who don't act on clients' illegal activities? nick hatch (Sep 08)