JeffC:
I'm addressing the points one at a time, as time allows.
I clarified our data collection methods and our reasoning/logic
in regards to board rules.

I'm going to need some practice with non-polarizing language.

I'm collecting evidence for C4IT in 3rd world nations.

Bill

Quote Originally Posted by JeffC View Post
Hey BILL;

Selil went to great lengths to address several points about your reply, all of which you seem to have missed. So in the interests of clarity, and of re-focusing this discussion, here's my take on what you might want to address in Selil's post to you in order to bring this conversation back around to the topic of this thread. (Sam, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting any of these):

1. When questioned about something that you've posted, provide additional clarifying information. Don't simply repeat what you've already said.

2. Avoid using polarizing language.

3. Instead of pulling from biased (i.e. "tainted) sources, look for objective sources to make your point.

4. You're invited to provide corroborating evidence from objective sources that supports your case that Jihadist Web sites are conducting Cyber warfare activities in 3rd world nations.

If you look at your reply to Selil, you failed to address all of those points, choosing instead to focus on one example that Selil used (an IO run by Fred Cohen), and even then your answer relied on polarizing language and false assumptions for the sake of some perceived emotional appeal.



Bottom line - we all love good discussions and/or debates. But in order for that to happen, both parties have to make an effort to understand what the other party is saying, and follow some basic "Rules of Engagement", such as the ones recommended to you by Selil.