On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:35:15 -0500 John Macdonald <jmm-TU2q2He6PgRlD5gtYiU6kEEOCMrvLtNR at public.gmane.org> wrote:

Far from proving that immediate disclosure has an advantage over delayed disclosure, you haven't even suggested any way in which it *might* have an advantage.

Read my post again, and the link to the Security Focus article, you will find I have in fact done so, only you have chosen to ignore it.

All of your arguments apply only to the comparison against non-disclosure; which no-one is trying to claim as a good practice. That is a straw man - you put a false argument into the mouths of your opponent so that you can knock it down. It does not accomplish any useful progress in the discussion.

I nowhere engaged in such a practice, I argued against *any* limits being placed on the free exchange of information, for reasons I have already stated, and have provided references for. Not once did I claim or assume that the "other side" of the argument was no disclosure at all. As Robert suggested would happen, this *is* getting repetitive, and now you are accusing me of something you seem to be doing yourself. So, to end the thread, placing limits on the free exchange of any information, whether it is for some limited time or perceived good, is the kind of slippery slope that leads to a regime **Hitler** would have loved ;-) -- JoeHill ++ ICQ # 280779813 Registered Linux user #282046 Homepage: www.orderinchaos.org +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "You tell me it's the institution; Well you know, you better free your mind instead..."-- John Lennon -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml