Re: A reply to Tampa Yankee

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Author Comment

BewareofNick

Member

Posts: 74

(6/8/05 1:38 pm)

Reply A reply to Tampa Yankee

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tampa Yankee today on the HBMC:

 

(See original post at escortspeak on ezboard.com for additional rehashing of the past. )

-----------Quote (from Tampa Yankee):

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, IMO there are two circumstances that may be beyond redemption Certainly not in the short term, maybe not ever. Those are circumstances of ultimate transgression against an individual and ultimate transgression against the site itself.

 

The ultimate transgression against an individual is the WILLFUL publication of personal information. All the worse if done multiple times. BG has already enumerated the risks in the 'Welcome Back...' thread. Things ARE done in the heat of the moment. But some things are just too grevious to be given a pass. That is why society metes out harsher penalities for coldly premediated actions or those meditated in heat in contrast to the more reflexive response in the heat of the moment.

 

The ulltimate transgression against the site is the attemped hacking of site servers and compromising site security. Daddy announced a few nights back that a site security issue was diverting him from the review process and that the MC was going to be up and down all night .

 

Neither of these transgressions can be easily overlooked IMO.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(BofN comment: )

 

I neither like nor appreciate the implications here. While I am guilty of the former, this is written in such a way as to accuse me of the latter. I have not now nor have I ever been a hacker. I have never attempted illegal entry into the HBMC or Daddy's servers. Even assuming I did, why would I delete Chicago Boy's posts? Doesn't make sense.

 

Back to you.

 

----------

 

Sorry BofN but you are mistaken. I took some pain to write the above so as not to explicity reflect on anyone. I chose not to mention names in either of the paragraphs. If you feel that my mentioning the two ultimate transgressions contiguously indicted you for both then that inference is yours to draw. I deliberately drafted the post not to mention names. My point was about the ultimate transgressions. The comments stand indpendent of any names.

[Rick Munroe]

>If you feel

>that my mentioning the two ultimate transgressions

>contiguously indicted you for both then that inference is

>yours to draw.

 

Hey, please remember that there are dumb #### like me participating here and big words like that give us headaches.