3 ms·
> What in God's name would require them to physically be there? Why does anyone go there physically by your standards? That is a dumb question.
by sigzero 13y ago
> What in God's name would require them to physically be there?
Why does anyone go there physically by your standards? That is a dumb question.
- PavlovsCat 13y agoYou taking it out of context doesn't mean it's a dumb question in context, and I don't see where my standards enter into it either: What in God's name would require them to physically be there in order to stay "up to date on the latest and greatest in cyberattacks"? To me that's a question about the physical world more than what people ought to be or do. It's a honest question, too. So if you or anyone can: tell me, I'm all ears. In absence of that, I'll just have to assume I refuted a silly statement with a perfectly valid question.
- dragontamer 13y agoYou are welcome to congratulate yourself on your own delusions of your debate methodology. But you've already proven to me that you're willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. You are unable to see "Feds" as anything different than an homogenous collective beast, ala the Borg. You think they all think the same, you think they are all equal. You think they're all part of some collective conspiracy out to get you. At which point, why should I bother debating with you? Arguing against bigots never produces results. At bare minimum, you need to prove to me that your brain can handle the fact that not every person inside of an ill-defined group is identical. Why do federal infosec security members want to go to Defcon? The same reason as any other defensive infosec professional. To learn how to defend against the latest and greatest attacks. Whether or not they are "feds" doesn't change their mission. Until you can understand this point, you're welcome to pretend that you've refuted my point. But I'll be blunt in my thoughts about you.