(this conversation joined already in progress...)

From: Small Grey (munge@attrition.org)
To: mememe56@hushmail.com
Cc: staff@attrition.org
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 00:23:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Hypocritical Attrition.org

mememe56@hushmail.com [mememe56@hushmail.com]
staggered from the flesh-eating rain and gurgled:

> I will reply without calling you any names.  You see, your argument is incredibly
> invalid. Calling me all the names you can think of doesn't prove your point
> in an argument.  Therefore your argument is just fluff.

  Interesting.  Technically, I didn't call you any names (see
below).  Later on "mememe" goes on to call me an asshole.
By your argument here, calling me names means your argument
is just fluff.  But that's your argument, not mine.  I can separate insults from 


> >  If you could show that we somehow go out of our way to glorify
> >defacers I'd agree with you.  But perhaps this reduces to what
> How do you go out of your way?  You spend an awfully large amount of time
> mirroring their sites don't you?  I know someone has to pay for your hosting
> bill.  If paying for that is not going out of your way I don't know what
> is.
> >you mean by "glorify".  Most everything that we do is fundamental
> >to the act of running a publically available mirror.  We simply
> >report and mirror defaced websites.  Outside of that behaviour,
> Oh, yes.  But you are THE one everyone looks at aren't you?

  The -only- evidence you can cite for our glorification of
defacers is running this mirror?  Yes, but?  Very weak.  See

> >what do you consider glorification?  Reporting defacement
> >statistics?  How is any of this remotely comparable to media
> >glorification of murderers?
> >  If you consider our running a public mirror that reports website
> >defacements defacto glorification, then sure, by your definition we
> Yes.  Why else do it?

  OK, you've just painted yourself ito a corner.  Here are other

1) Historical.  Having an archive of web site defacements is
a valuable reference that is used by researchers, law
enforcement and security professionals.

2) Statistical.  Summarizations of Operating System, web servers,
and Top Level Domains are also used by industry, security
professionals, even the government and military.

  This answers your questions regarding Attrition if you are
actually interested in knowing and carrying on an honest

> >glorify defacers.  I would also consider you a sad little moron and
> >a waste of time to discuss anything with.
> I think you probably think that of most people.  But you are the one that
> is such a sad case.  You can't even make your point without throwing in
> personal insults against someone you don't even know.

  I wrote "I would also consider....", I didn't write "I consider".
The "would also" refers to a condition in the preceding sentence.
You see, the sentence just before the one you take such offense to
starts with "[i]f".  Since you cannot imagine another reason to
run a public mirror than to glorify defacers and cannot read a
simple paragraph, then perhaps you meet the technical definition
of "moron".

> Okay here you get rather blurry.  You say I "bandy" about the word hacker.
>  Whatever.  The point I was making has nothing to do with hackers that are
> not doing anything illegal, so why would I discuss them?  Should I send
> a glossary with my next email so you will know I know the definition of
> every word I use with you?

  I love weak sarcasm.  Sure, send that glossary along.
Actually, you are working both sides of the word hacker.  Let's
go ahead and replace "hackers" with what you now claim to mean,
"illegal hackers":

 "...you are creating a website that is all about the hackers."

now reads:

"...you are creating a website that is all about the illegal hackers."

But we haven't created a site all about illegal hacking.
And if that is indeed what you meant, it's trivial to demonstrate
that you're just wrong.  But given your reply, I don't see much
of a reason to continue a discussion with you.  You're incapable
of carrying an argument and have to resort to name calling.

> >  "[D]on't know anything" is strong "create a straw-man and
> >pummel it" language.  Given that we mirror defacements we
> >certainly know -something- about them, which is more than not
> >knowing anything, isn't it?
> I wouldn't call my assertation an attack.  Whether or not you do all of
> the above is your perogative I suppose.

Your stupid little straw man is destroyed.

> >cheers,
> Oh yes what a happy letter this is!
> Have a Nice Day Asshole,
> Me

"I will reply without calling you any names."
Ironic, isn't it?

> P.S. Oh and look a little mysogyny thrown in at the bottom of this e-Mail,
>  how touching.  Are you a KKK member too?  Or are you just popularly violent
> towards women and children only?

You're really grasping here.  JerkCity is a comic strip.
Please grow up.  And grow a brain stem.

please don't breed,


P.S. I think the signature below is apropos given mememe's
hypocrisy and stilted moral indignation:

Moral indignation is a technique used to endow the
idiot with dignity." --Marshall MacLuhan

main page ATTRITION feedback