torthrowaway123

4 ms·

1.
by torthrowaway123 12y ago
Sorry we're both being unclear I guess - I didn't read into your comments that you have that view, I was just explaining that within my comment I was talking about terrorism as the context for violence, and thus ignoring petty act
2.
by torthrowaway123 12y ago
I dont quite follow your point - youre worried that I might have used my real email address when creating this HN account, or used the same password as a different HN account?
3.
by torthrowaway123 12y ago
I dont (fully) want to be defensive about Hammond, after all in my original comment, I said that he strikes me as someone who would be OK turning violent if he thought justified. But the examples you give are more like excited teenagers as
4.
by torthrowaway123 12y ago
Already aware of that and found myself writing differently to how I normally would... though don't know nearly enough about the subject to know how much conscious changes would make. (In this case it's pretty irrelevant, fairly su
5.
by torthrowaway123 12y ago
I'm not sure "to include hackers" is the same as "to include non-violence", though that may well be what he meant. You can commit a non-violent act of civil disobedience without going near a computer, and you could
6.
by torthrowaway123 12y ago
I think the difference of opinion here is on the definition of "violence", which is a part of the definition of "terrorism". AKA blowing up a building to scare people is, hacking into stuff (however damaging) isn't.
7.
by torthrowaway123 12y ago
A decade ago I knew Jeremy, a very little. Not enough to be particularly interesting even then, yet alone now, and I haven't spoken to him since he went to jail for the first time (I think around 2005). I hugely admire his morals, and