Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!purdue!spaf From: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Musing on Constitutionality Message-ID: <11610@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Date: 6 Sep 90 18:49:04 GMT References: <11503@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <82778@aerospace.AERO.ORG> Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU Followup-To: alt.flame Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University Lines: 128 [Follow-ups have been directed to alt.flame If you aren't interested in reading my replies to Barry Shein's insults, you can skip this now.] In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) responds to my criticism of his posting with a personal attack: > If you have something to contribute, contribute. But your persistent > insipid, shallow grandstanding and attempts to draw attention to > yourself as "Mr. Security" are really quite pathetic and have been a > laughingstock of the Unix community for years (if not just an > embarrassment.) Hmmm, I guess this means you won't be joining the fan club? Let me also note somewhere that you are the official spokesman for the Unix community...I must have missed the proclamation. Also, I have never portrayed myself as "Mr. Security" or even signed any of my letters that way. My area of expertise is consequences of software failure, and alternatives. That includes testing, debugging, fault-tolerant systems, and to some extent security. I also know a fair amount about Unix security, and about computer vandalware. If the fact that I have published refereed articles, gotten competitive grants, been invited to conferences to speak, written books, been named to national boards, been invited to testify before Congress, and consulted with law enforcement agencies internationally has resulted in someone mistaking me for an expert, my apologies. Also, if speaking my mind makes me a laughingstock, I'll gladly take that role. > For years now, back to and including your San Diego "ethics" seminar > at USENIX, where your "brilliant" definition of ethics as "timeless" > didn't last thru the first audience question, (at which point you > embarrassedly backed off entirely) have been laughable and devoid of > even the slightest hint that you have any background or have even read > a single book in fields of ethics, law, communications law, or > anything you profess about other than some technical knowledge of how > networks work. Or perhaps you never understood any pages you looked > at. (It was a panel, not a seminar, BTW.) My San Diego appearance was very bad -- no argument there. It might have beend that I had a case of bronchial pneumonia and was running a temperature of over 102 at the time of the panel that had something to do with my less-than-stellar performance. Or, it may have been that I don't function well in live debates with a hostile audience. I prefer to be able to stop and think some, and check references, before responding. It's also difficult to try to phrase an explanation of a complex topic (like the nature of ethics, or the difference between ethics and law) to a crowd where many (most) members have no background in the area. Try it some time -- it's harder than it looks...at least if you are really interested in educating the audience. Your other assertions don't even warrant a response here. Anybody who wants a copy of my vita or a reading list of material I believe relevant to the area is free to contact me. However, I am interested in how many other of my presentations you have attended to be able to form such a comprehensive assessment? > It is astounding to me to watch you time and again make statements > like there are no regular publications on networks, then get pelted > with counter-examples and just say "oops, sorry..." My statement was that there were no regular publications comparable to the New York Times. Hell, I *make* one series of regular publications on the network. I still don't think there is anything comparable, but I conceded that there are some electronic publications that meet many of the obvious qualifications, although I had not thought of them when making my original point. Please try to read what I write. You might be less astounded. > This latest attack (on me) is typical of your total disinterest in > engaging in forum or investigation of that which you are quick to jump > to a podium to extemporate on. I made no attack on you. Up until I read your response, I have had considerable respect for you. I called your statement inane. That was not an insult directed at you. Your argument in that previous posting is still inane (lacking meaning; silly). You picked two vaguely related factoids and implied that we could draw some meaningful conclusion from them out of context. As for my disinterest in engaging in forum, well, I guess you haven't been reading my postings, have you? > You answer facts with sarcasm, typical of the methods of a frustrated, > mediocre, grandstander. I'm glad you identified the sarcasm. That form of answer is a classic method of reply to the deserving. There is little frustration here. As to the other two points, I don't think either of us is in a position to judge. > In short, sir, I call you a charlatan, a quack, and a fool. Now go > away. I hope I have now warned others. 1) A charlatan is an imposter. To my knowledge, all my postings have been under my real name. If I'm not really Gene Spafford, you better notify the folks at Purdue (among others) -- they'll be quite upset. They like to know who is *really* on their faculty and teaching classes. 2) A "quack"? I have never practiced medicine. I have worked as an EMT and I teach for the Red Cross, but I am very careful not to give medical advice. Heck, I even discourage my students from addressing me as "Dr." although I worked damned hard to earn my degree. 3) A fool. My wife thinks so. :-) You think so. Others probably do too. Responding to your diatribe probably plants me firmly in that camp with others. So be it. Luckily, my colleagues and students don't view me in quite the same light (or with as little evidence or consideration). 4) I may go away from this newsgroup, as it appearsmost people aren't interested in arguing the points I bring up, and others seem more interested in being personally insulting when they are challenged. However, I won't "go away" from the issues or the community. 5) You have indeed warned others. I leave it to them to judge what you have warned them of, and of whom. -- Gene Spafford NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf