Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ncar!tank!mimsy!aplcen!aplcomm!stdc.jhuapl.edu!jwm
From: jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: rtm and uucp
Message-ID: <2456@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 88 17:42:55 GMT
References: <8409@alice.UUCP> <8597@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> <90@lazlo.UUCP>
Sender: news@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
Reply-To: jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt)
Organization: JHU-Applied Physics Laboratory
Lines: 27

In article <90@lazlo.UUCP> ccs@lazlo.UUCP (Clifford C. Skolnick) writes:
}In article <8597@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) writes:
}>
}>It would be so nice if someone would undertake a security audit to
}>insure that work other college students did, which *is* currently
}>in production, doesn't contain any surprizes.
}
}What evidence do you have that college students are evil programmers
}whos code should be verified?  It does not take a college student to place
}a section of unathorized code into a program.  I'm sure many programs out
}in the real word have similar features added by a programmer and abused
}by another (as this case was).

OK set folk, where am I wrong?  (go to it, weemba!)

I do not see:
1. The original post did not say ALL college students are "evil programmers"
   (it implied to me that most were not, though)
2. The original post said ONE college student was (rtm)
3. The original post did not say ONLY college students are "evil programmers".


So why the flail, unless the old "protesteth too much" syndrome?


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck