On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:09:09 +0200 Anders Karlsson <anders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Frank Cox <theatre@xxxxxxxxxxx> [20080824 21:42]: > > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:27:47 -0800 > > Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > the full details > > > can not be publicly disclosed instantaneously due to legal constraint > > > > This I simply don't understand. > > You do not need to understand, you just need to accept that this is > the case. > You may not like it (I don't particularly, but I realise the need for > it), and you are within your right to voice your opinion. If I "simply need to accept", then it's not open and saying that this is an open process or a community is merely pretty window-dressing. > > > If I am minding my own business and walking to the post office, and Joe Bloggs > > walks up to me and punches me in the nose, I think I'm perfectly within my > > rights to tell my friends and everyone else who wants to listen that Joe Bloggs > > punched me in the nose. On the other hand, if I want to date Joe Bloggs' sister > > I might tell people who ask me how I got a broken nose that I can't tell them. > > But that's not "legal reasons", that's simply my personal choice to keep quiet > > about it. > > You are describing two situations that are worlds apart. Comparing > apples and oranges is not going to all of a sudden make you right. They are both a crime. One affects me, and one affects many people around the globe, in ways that we still are unaware of due to a lack of factual disclosure. I'd say that the second situation is even more worthy of open discussion and full disclosure than the first. > > > Why should this be any different? Either something happened, or it did not. > > If something happened, then the facts will either be released, or > > not. > > In due time. Patience is a virtue and all that. Unfortunately, there are many people who have systems that may or may not be affected by this issue and many of those systems do important stuff. At least, stuff that's important to their owners and that's the part that counts. "My house might be burning down." "We'll call the fire department to check it out in due time. Patience is a virtue." > In another post, Paul > Frields pointed at a thread that explains the situation. We aren't going to tell you because we aren't telling you yet isn't an explanation. It's a tautology. > If you are volunteering to spend all the years in jail I couldn't volunteer even if I wanted to. I don't have the facts, and I have no way to obtain them. So that's not even a choice that's on the table. Accordingly, it's an irrelevant point. > Facts - not petty demands or ludicrous speculation - will emerge in > due time and when appropriate Now would be past time. Last week would be an appropriate time. >, and I still think that The Cuckoo's Egg > should be a mandatory read before people start demanding instant > disclosure. Shall I recommend a few good books for you to read before you call that fire truck as well? I have a fairly extensive library and I'm sure I can find something for you.... -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
