2010-02-16, 05:37 PM
DustBunny Wrote:You claimed I thought of them as masterminds, you claimed they were incapable because they didn't know how to obtain one hacking method. You already elaborated your so called reasons. I elaborated mine and like a child, muted because you didn't like what I said to say.
Your reasons are without evidence, rely on hearsay and require the carte blanche acceptance of the honesty of so called hackers in admitting what they can and can not do. You also seem to think I am the only one here capable of moderating a post. Neither lends credibility to your opinion.
FrozNlite Wrote:Voting "No," and staunchly declaring with absolute certainty the account will not be hacked is therefore close-minded, and I would invite those believing in such truths to question their convictions and determine whether they're based on logical fact - or a refusal, ground in the hope of progress, to believe in the uncertain.
You're failing to take into account a key fact in your determination of what "No" means - The time limit. Infinite monkeys with infinite computers can accomplish anything, eventually. Saying no doesn't necessarily mean we believe it's any more secure, it may simply mean we doubt they can adapt that quickly, especially if they're still raiding people who haven't set PICS yet. Even hackers have priorities. Wide open vs more effort.
ClawofBeta Wrote:And the post in question is...?
He whined about not being able to tell his inappropriate posts were being deleted and therefore didn't know he should stop reposting it over and over and some other silly ranting so to make it clear that message was replaced with a deleted notice that he apparently holds a grudge against. It's off topic here and Fiel even pointed out the threads were being moderated in accordance to policy about discussing hackers and FUD.
It's not having what you want - It's wanting what you've got.

