×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An Inventory of Misleading BushAdmin Quotes on a .Gov Site!

Cliff (4114) writes | more than 10 years ago

User Journal 36

When .gov sites like these start showing up, can the Independent Counsels be that far behind?

Well...yes! That particular law was encouraged to expire, and eventually did, on June 30th, 1999.When .gov sites like these start showing up, can the Independent Counsels be that far behind?

Well...yes! That particular law was encouraged to expire, and eventually did, on June 30th, 1999.

Still, it makes one wonder what the Justice Department is doing with the resonsibility it reassumed, with the death of the Independent Council Act. Why do we have a website made by the House of Representatives pointing out misleading comments by officials, that led to a war, instead of attempts at impeachments or censure for these same officials?

Hopefully the appearance of such sites means that someone is taking steps to make sure the current administration comes clean on the reasons they were made, in the first place. When such statements lead an invasion of a foreign country, in a war sold on false pretences, I would hope that someone would seek to find those responsible and make them answer to the American people as to why the trust we have place in them, to lead this country, has been so betrayed.

It's not that I want the Independent Counsel act to be reinstated, as was called for by Lieberman to investigate the Plame Affair. It has been used as a partisan weapon once too many times, with the taxpayers footing the bill of political prosecution after political prosecution. However it seems that this administration has been able to coast by on many questionable issues during its run, and in an Election Year, it is high time this administration becomes accountable for the things it has done, during its tenure in power.

Will this happen? Only time will tell...

36 comments

Still and all, I have to say, (1)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 10 years ago | (#8585903)

That after the republinazi's spent $44 MILLION to find a stain on a dress, I for one am all for being paritsan on this one.

Re:Still and all, I have to say, (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8609137)

That's nice revisionism. A friend of a White House intern brought information to the Independent Counsel that proved the President committed perjury, so he brought it to the Attorney General as per his duty, who then told him to investigate it. Reno is more to blame than the Republicans for that, sorry.

Re:Still and all, I have to say, (1)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 10 years ago | (#8609438)

If I'm a revisionist, you should look in a mirror. Please explain to me what a stain on a dress had to do with Whitewater? For that matter, can someone explain to me why Whitewater was investigated in the first place?

Re:Still and all, I have to say, (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8609585)

I am not saying the investigation was a good thing. I am saying it is a lie to say that the Republicans were the ones behind adding Lewinsky to the investigation.

Re:Still and all, I have to say, (1)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 10 years ago | (#8609871)

Three questions for you then:

Was/Is Linda Tripp a republican?

Doesn't Whitewater being a "bad" investigation make any results of that investigation "fruit of the poisened tree"?

Did Clinton ever lie to get hundreds of our men and women in uniform (of which I was one, for 8 years) killed in a forign land?

Re:Still and all, I have to say, (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8610057)

Was/Is Linda Tripp a republican?

Don't know, don't care. She was a nobody, as far as the party was concerned, until she brought the evidence. To say her party affiliation has any bearing on whether "the Republicans" were behind it is stupid.

Doesn't Whitewater being a "bad" investigation make any results of that investigation "fruit of the poisened tree"?

Maybe, but you were talking specifically about something a liberal Democrat was the responsible party for, and saying it was all the Republicans' fault. I am not saying the Republicans bear no responsibility -- they certainly encouraged the investigation, and then impeached -- but she's the one who ordered it to be investigated. And don't forget, Clinton's the one who actually committed perjury, which happened *before Lewinsky was being investigated by the independent counsel*. His perjury is what STARTED the investigation, it was not -- as some believe -- a result of the investigation.

It just boggles the mind that some people blame the accusers when someone commits a felony. Could any greater evidence of bias exist than this?

Your third question, being entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, shall be ignored.

hundreds of our men and women in uniform (of which I was one, for 8 years)

Thank you.

Re:Still and all, I have to say, (1)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 10 years ago | (#8613169)

1.) Tripp, as you well know I suspect, was and is a republican. She was in contact with people within the party, a publisher in particular, who was the first to encourage her to tape the conversations. To deny that she was, at a minimum a republican stooge, is to be as revisionist as possible. She was, and is a republican. She sought advice from, and then acted on the advice of, other republicans in the party.

2.) Clinton lied about having sex with Lewinski, right? What lie is it you're refering to? My memory is very hazy on this point, please feel free to remind me. :-)

3.) The third question IS the whole point. If Clinton deserved to be impeached for ejaculating on Monica Lewinski, and lying about it, what does George Bush deserve for getting 100's of my brothers and sisters in uniform killed, and lying about it? I submit that, at a minimum, he deserves a trial in the senate after he is impeached for high crimes against the American people.

Your failure to address this point is telling - specifically, it tells me you have no means of defending the President-Select's behavior.

Nor should you. His actions are indefensible. But don't worry, we'll be sure to let him know that personally, in November, at the ballot box*.

* This offer not good in Florida, where the votes of better than 40000 people will be ignored because they register as Democrats, and have a name vaguely simmilar to that of one or more convicted felons.

Re:Still and all, I have to say, (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8613730)

Tripp, as you well know I suspect, was and is a republican.

Your suspicions are inaccurate.

She was in contact with people within the party, a publisher in particular, who was the first to encourage her to tape the conversations.

Yes, I know her publisher was in some contact with some Republicans. So what? They did it because Lewinsky had *perjured herself*, and told Tripp about it. Unless "the Republicans" forced them both to lie, I am not going to give a damn. And they didn't.

Clinton lied about having sex with Lewinski, right?

Yes, in a deposition for the Paula Jones case, they both lied about having sex. She told Tripp she lied, she told powerful friends, who told her to tape it, and she turned it over to the IC, who turned it over to the AG, who told the IC to investigate it. If it was so unimportant as you implied, then the AG should have told him to not investigate it. She had all the power, and used it in the way she thought was most appropriate.

The only point is that to blame "the Republicans" for wasting time/money on something unimportant is to ignore the fact that the person who controlled whether or not it should be investigated was a liberal Democrat.

The third question IS the whole point.

Maybe for you; I am merely addressing your assertion that the investigation of the Lewinsky affair is the fault of the Republicans. I don't care what else you want to discuss, I am not addressing it at this time.

Your failure to address this point is telling - specifically, it tells me you have no means of defending the President-Select's behavior.

At this time, in this context, you are correct. I have done so many times before, and I surely will in the future. However, I will note that your direct comparison to Bush is uninteresting because Bush has not broken any laws that you have named; he's done something you don't like, which isn't a crime. Clinton was impeached because he did break the law. Perhaps what Bush did was worse, but it is not directly comparable to what happened to Clinton, because it is a matter of opinion, not law.

Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

Cliff (4114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8588010)

...by the fact that my Journal has become WAY more political than I ever intended it to be?

Re:Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | more than 10 years ago | (#8588771)

Nah, if it weren't for politics(and wierd games/polls/etc.) we'd quickly run outta stuff to talk about that wasn't already covered on the rest of /.

No (1)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 10 years ago | (#8589163)

This is a good thing; an informed, active electorate is the only thing that keeps a Democracy from degenerating into a Dictatorship. You're paying attention and bringing us information that we might not know about -- helping us all.

While the majority of unwashed masses visit the fluff of the front page, the real heart and soul of /. is in the JEs.

Re:No (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 10 years ago | (#8601639)

The problem is, in my opinion, we dont have an "informed" ACTIVE electorate. I'm just talking about those who actively take part in the voting process. Most of us don't know who our representatives are -- and we either voted FOR them or AGAINST them. Further, most of us have no clue as to the impact of voter initiatives (propositions, for example) and are only mildly aware of sound-bites we hear on the radio and/or TV. In CA, prop 56 would lost my a much larger margin had the electorate actually been INFORMED about what it proposed to DO (make it easier for our legislator to increase spending/taxes).

Frankly, I'm worred about an IL-INFORMED and ACTIVE electorate degenerating our republic to an irresponsible "mob-rule". In California, we can already see this trend. We conviently blame our representatives for our economic problems -- but it was *WE* who voted them in to office because *WE* wanted them to give us goodies (restrictive environmental standards, construction standards, insurance standards, etc). Then when the BILL came, we all choked.

Yah (1)

Safety Cap (253500) | more than 10 years ago | (#8605732)

The problem is that us human animals are wired for fast twitch feedback.
  • Put your hand on the hot stove? Get immediate feedback -- won't do that again!
  • Vote some schulb into office? 2 years later, the jerk is taking your rights and running up a nice fat debt -- "let's reelect him."

Seems to me that things would be better (or at least interesting) if we could have the vote of confidence. If our elected officials piss off enough people, they could promptly call for a VOC and then throw the bastards out, instead of waiting for months or years. :)

Electorate Confidence (1)

Cliff (4114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8605998)

A vote of confidence? I'm all for that! I don't see why in any Republic-masking-as-a-Democracy we don't have such, in the first place.

There is the matter of the succession and the continuance of government if such were to happen. I mean, what happenes when the President (and Vice President) does not win his Vote of Confidence? Who steps in? Members of Cabinet (who are more likely to implement the policies of the man you just kicked out)? The last President? Someone from another party (and if another party, how is that party and candidate decided)?

So while a Vote of Confidence sounds real good, there are problems to resolve before it could become a decent solution.

Re:Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

flikx (191915) | more than 10 years ago | (#8591138)

No. Please make your journals more liberal. :-)

Ahh.... You're Joking, Right? (1)

Cliff (4114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8596316)

The only way I could make this journal more liberal is by turning the text red, and convincing your monitor to spontaneously bleed out of its seams.

Actually, I've been told that I'm more libertarian and less liberal -- *shrug* -- these are only labels. Most "cover-all" labels are sincerely insufficient when describing the politics for any individual, but it satisfies the human need to "pigeonhole", so....

Re:Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

js7a (579872) | more than 10 years ago | (#8596608)

Not me.

I'm still steamed at Pudge. (See sig.)

Re:Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8609173)

Yes, and you cover it up by lying. Everyone who was following -- I assume including you -- knows you were not made a foe because of your politics. I asked you many times to stop making arguments without backing them up, and you insisted on doing so. And then when I called you on it, you lied to me and told me you never made the argument you had been making for several weeks. You were made a foe because you could not engage in a discussion responsibly.

Even if you don't buy that -- even though everyone following along saw it -- I have many friends on Slashdot whom I disagree with as much or more than you, which is proof enough that when you say I made you a foe because of your politics, that you are lying.

Re:Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

js7a (579872) | more than 10 years ago | (#8619880)

I asked you many times to stop making arguments without backing them up, and you insisted on doing so.
Can you find a single example of where I had made an argument without backing it up sufficiently for you, and you complained about it, and I didn't provide additional support for my position? On the contrary, I remember quite clearly that in the thread where you decided to ban me from your journal, I produced two distinct examples of situations where the Bush administration admitted that they literally "did not look at the intelligence" after you called that claim absurd.
And then when I called you on it, you lied to me and told me you never made the argument you had been making for several weeks.
It is as plain as day that you at the one being dishonest here. In your comment in question [slashdot.org] , made just before you banned me, you claimed these two sentences were a lie:
I never suggested that the mere temporal coincidence explained anything. I said that equity investors' fears of the then-suddenly-likely return to deficit spending and supply-side economics caused the sell-off.
Yet the evidence you presented were two of my statements as follows (boldface added):
In fact I do blame Bush for the stock market crash (the all-time highs of the Dow and S&P 500 occured just days after Bush started leading Gore in polls,
months after Bush announced he would, if elected, be returning to deficit spending)
and:
Some of us have noticed that the $7 trillion that exited the U.S. stock markets (broadly, not just from dotcom, telecom, and Enron-type stocks) from mid-2000 through 2002, began almost exactly at the same time as Bush started leading Gore in the polls.
Since your censorship prevented me from asking these questions in reply to the appropriate comment, I am very glad that you are finally giving me an opportunity to ask them to you here:

1. Why do you think the boldfaced reference to Bush's announced fiscal policies in the first statement was not included as an explanation of the causality?

2. Why do you think the second statement suggests any explanation at all, let alone "mere temporal coincidence"?

I have many friends on Slashdot whom I disagree with as much or more than you, which is proof enough that when you say I made you a foe because of your politics
On the contrary, it seems to me, based on your tone, ad hominems, and foul language you began using with me some weeks after I began posting in your journal, simply that most people don't take the time to argue with you very well, and it was distressing to you when I did.

Re:Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8622786)

Can you find a single example of where I had made an argument without backing it up sufficiently for you, and you complained about it, and I didn't provide additional support for my position?

I have done so several times, as every reader of our discussions well knows. I am not going to rehash it all and once again prove your lies to be lies.

However, I will answer your questions, sorta.

1. Why do you think the boldfaced reference to Bush's announced fiscal policies in the first statement was not included as an explanation of the causality?

The context was what evidence you had that it was the cause of the sell-off. It was a given that Bush's policies, in your mind, are bad for the economy. But you gave no *evidence* that they caused a sell-off other than the fact that it happend around the time he started leading in the polls. I disregarded it because you offered no evidence that this scared investors at all -- let alone enough to pull their money from US markets -- that was only your opinion.

2. Why do you think the second statement suggests any explanation at all, let alone "mere temporal coincidence"?

It clearly implies something more than mere correlation, else it would not have been worth stating in the first place. That's common sense (or, should be).

On the contrary, it seems to me, based on your tone, ad hominems, and foul language you began using with me some weeks after I began posting in your journal

Yes, I changed my tone with you after it was clear you wouldn't change your unreasonable argumentation tactics, so I was hoping that, where reason failed, abuse might succeed. When that, too, failed, I finally made you a foe.

Note that you prove here that it is not your politics that precipitated it; else, I'd have been abusive toward you from the beginning. Oopsie on you!

Re:Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

js7a (579872) | more than 10 years ago | (#8623562)

I have [found arguments which js7a hadn't backed up sufficiently and pointed that out without further support from js7a] several times, as every reader of our discussions well knows. I am not going to rehash it all and once again prove your lies to be lies.
Every reader of our discussions knows that you have done this several times?!? I can't find a single instance, and so I suspect you are just making this up. If it has happened so many times, then it would be easy for you to point out just one instance! But since you can't be bothered: I ask every reader of this thread to post just a few examples of the several instances of which you claim they are so well aware.
1. Why do you think the boldfaced reference to Bush's announced fiscal policies in the first statement was not included as an explanation of the causality?
The context was what evidence you had that it was the cause of the sell-off. It was a given that Bush's policies, in your mind, are bad for the economy. But you gave no *evidence* that they caused a sell-off other than the fact that it happend around the time he started leading in the polls. I disregarded it because you offered no evidence that this scared investors at all -- let alone enough to pull their money from US markets -- that was only your opinion.
That doesn't answer the question I asked at all. You said that my claim to have "never suggested mere temporal coincidence" as an explanation for the stock market decline and my claim that I have stated it had to do with investors' fear of a return to deficit spending was a lie. To prove this you quoted a passage where I explicitly noted the temporal correlation followed by pointing out Bush's earlier announced effective intent to return to deficit spending. I asked why you think that the part about deficit spending was not indended as an explaination. I agree you "disregarded" it, but because it didn't have additional supporting evidence included? That's absurd; if you hold writing to that standard then there would be no finite-length texts, because additional support would be required for every statement in turn.

And, your "sorta" answer brings up another question: Why would you think that deficit spending would not worry equity investors? Descriptions of the deleterious effects of deficits are easy to find. [bellevue.edu]

2. Why do you think the second statement suggests any explanation at all, let alone "mere temporal coincidence"?
It clearly implies something more than mere correlation, else it would not have been worth stating in the first place.
On the contrary, simply substituting weather terms for finance terms, the second statement that you presented as evidence of my lie can be written thusly:
Some of us have noticed that the rain began almost exactly at the same time as the baseball game began.
To suggest that "clearly implies something more than correlation" would be laughable were it not so pathetic.

Yes, I changed my tone with you after it was clear you wouldn't change your unreasonable argumentation tactics
It seems to me that your definition of reasonable has more to do with the ease with which you can dispose of an argument than the truth contained therein.
Note that you prove here that it is not your politics that precipitated it
Indeed. If I merely disagreed with you without putting in any effort to showing your mistakes, I am certain that you would still be glad to have me posting in your journal.

Re:Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8623732)

I can't find a single instance

Of course you can't: you have thinking problems, which is why you see no logical problems with your positions, even when they are pointed out to you.

it would be easy for you to point out just one instance

And you would just deny it says what it says, so why should I bother? You even quoted yourself saying what I said you said, and then denied you ever said it. Get a grip.

I ask every reader of this thread to post just a few examples of the several instances of which you claim they are so well aware.

I ask every reader of this thread to laugh at you.

That doesn't answer the question I asked at all.

Yawn. Yes, it does.

Why would you think that deficit spending would not worry equity investors?

Because it doesn't hurt corporations in the short term, as proven by our current budget deficit and rebounding stock market.

But here's a better question, since you keep dodging it: what makes you think investors are not worried by Kerry's promise to increase the labor costs and taxes of corporations?

On the contrary

You are once again lying to me. You meant to imply something more than mere correlation. Others thought that too, and when I and others replied to you about it, you went on to defend the notion that Bush caused the problem. And because you are lying to me, I shall cease reading the rest of your post at this time. Should you wish to engage in further discussions with me, you should lie and tell me you did not mean to imply what you clearly did.

Re:Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

js7a (579872) | more than 10 years ago | (#8624138)

If you don't want to read my whole post, fine. Please just tell me this:

How can you possibly claim that a statement in which I explicitly referred to an earlier factor involved with a temporal correlation is evidence that I lied when I said I never claimed there was only a temporal correlation?

As to your question about Kerry's tax policy, I would simply point you to the effectiveness of Clinton's large tax hike combined with targeted stimuli, most of which were various employer tax credits totalling a smaller amount. If you need details, you can see them here. [adventurepix.com] Treasury Secretary Snow said last summer that he would "stake his reputation on job growth by Christmas." Are you going to let your faith in supply-side economics do the same to your reputation?

Re:Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8624735)

How can you possibly claim that a statement in which I explicitly referred to an earlier factor involved with a temporal correlation is evidence that I lied when I said I never claimed there was only a temporal correlation?

I explained this twice. You're really boring. But I will humor you, and try one last time.

It's a given that you believed investors didn't like Bush's policies. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had any of this discussion. But the context was me asking for *evidence* that Bush caused the stock market crash, and your only *evidence* was that he was leading in the polls. Citing your belief that investors don't like his policies is part of your argument, but it was not evidence for your argument.

As to your question about Kerry's tax policy, I would simply point you to ... ... something which does not explain your hypocrisy. I am well aware that there are good reasons why the stock market is having a problem in early 2004, that have nothing to do with Kerry. But there were also good reasons in early 2000 that had nothing to do with Bush, yet you believe -- without *any evidence apart from the mere temporal coincidence* -- that it was because Bush was leading in the polls, which is *the exact same evidence we have with Kerry.*

And yes, you believed investors disliked Bush's policies. And I believe they dislike Kerry's. And neither of us have any significant *evidence* to back up that belief. Well, I do have more than you do -- such as the fact that most corporations back the Republicans, not the Democrats -- but it's not enough to mean anything in the context.

But you don't give a damn about any of that. Arguments you use may not be used against you, because you're right, and everyone else is wrong!

Again, you're really boring.

Re:Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

js7a (579872) | about 10 years ago | (#8689786)

How can you possibly claim that a statement in which I explicitly referred to an earlier factor involved with a temporal correlation is evidence that I lied when I said I never claimed there was
only a temporal correlation?
... Citing your belief that investors don't like his policies is part of your argument....
Oh. Well, then. That sure explains it. Thanks, Pudge.

Sorry I'm so boring.

Re:Is Anyone Else Bothered... (1)

Jhon (241832) | more than 10 years ago | (#8630368)

Every reader of our discussions knows that you have done this several times?!? I can't find a single instance, and so I suspect you are just making this up.
I'm your "single instance". Appologize to Pudge now and look less like a fool. Further, read your own journal linked on your sig -- theres more than just me who's made the observations made by Pudge.

I believe you are either incapable of rational arguments (i.e., you are stupid), or you are doing it deliberately (i.e., you are a troll). Either way, I've essentially ignored you -- but your suggestion that Pudge inaccurately portraying the exchanges between you two urged me to post. You are wrong. Failure to appologize would suggest to me you are deliberately lying. You've got a choice to make here -- be a stand-up/intellectually honest individual, or be a lying coward. It's your choice. I know what *I* think you're going to do. Prove me wrong.

Now, follow my advice. Learn to read critically. Learn to think critically -- and most important: Until you've done the first two, learn to STFU.

So a congress critter's bleating (1)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 10 years ago | (#8588305)

Is cause for alarm? Puh-leeze. This is the normal partisan bickering that has been going on for years now.

Shouldn't you be more outraged when say, memos showing collusion between congressmen and external groups to delay judicial appointments because of current cases in the system show up?

Perhaps that outrage should extend to the fact that the parties implicated in the memos are only yelling about "how did our memos become available?" Instead of, "well, gee, maybe we should investigate the information/allegations detailed in the memos."

But no, let's just keep hammering the ol' "Bush lied. People died." meme.

Hey, you haven't happened to have come across a spare $1 billion that the Oil-for-Food program seems to have misplaced did ya?

Re:So a congress critter's bleating (1)

loucura! (247834) | more than 10 years ago | (#8593294)

Hey, you haven't happened to have come across a spare $1 billion that the Oil-for-Food program seems to have misplaced did ya?

Sorry about that, I wasn't aware that anyone had dibs... I'll uh... give it back.

419 scam waiting to be done. :-D (1)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 10 years ago | (#8595404)

I suppose it's just a matter of time before we get e-mail from Kofi Anan's "cousin" trying to get into the bank account...

Re:419 scam waiting to be done. :-D (1)

loucura! (247834) | more than 10 years ago | (#8595793)

MY FRIEND I AM EMAILING YOU FOR GREAT JUSTICE. I MUST MOVE GREAT BILLIONS OUT OF A BANK ACCOUNT IN IRAQ FOR GREAT JUSTICE. I AM KOFI ANAN'S BROTHER'S COUSIN TWICE REMOVED ON THE THIRD SIDE'S BEST FRIEND'S NEPHEW, DOCTOR STRANGELOVE. I AM EMAILING YOU IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE THAT YOU WILL HELP ME MOVE THIS MONEY FROM AN ACCOUNT IN IRAQ. PLEASE EMAIL ME WITH YOUR BANK DETAILS, AND A PICTURE OF YOUR ELDEST DAUGHTER.

THANK YOU,
SINCERELY,
DR. STRANGELOVE.

cat /dev/urandom below
----
Ayi3/4SXl tajemai'WlBaa
al*uIx{
=Q|?u[UAwEu{nY1/4POV386oA6
P35=o5f(TM)IUmww"YI4T5OEfBA
(,"O`BQ5>Ba6o^Ec|Ja a-D[clCih7("Bp:'8dWe...hWe"F.AA Ne--d
>>O'GoOe3/4no&AYyOjIf1/4vOEOX9j;orE|r"B>aeW 6'9cDoI CfxolDZGa91,IG...UOEiae1/2@aui /b(KYA
oI)"Uqqu\>v1/2|
h(R)^u~!U}QiAEK=.n )G@hcIV
7R1/2o@EE
*ao~8--aaos-|e(Oi#E,AuAFZuIoaI IOoeoOo6 vno>a+U$I
oAOjx1/4sJXNsNYKu0_BsoIae(R);so-ugOI.RD %G7'xcyMuAz [PzwOna...UiENaaU|unwa'ca;I+/-
E}1/4{Inb@[OEo jizuB!o1/4z`
iE;0GGI
R
#U~o%oz+/-'msBJoJdAOEAEY OEK/YA(TM)daQ/UkEoAw
i-,D=6IOaGaUItO?du2JEo s~BE}o!_IoEXe6si?jCz@OUPdft'IuaoQ'"DpIx+"YO*/o...U S0aCB(+/-a$Uo*e Pie=eIanUu+/-!KvffX!\H+/-oeUa'Xk6(...o"UYz1/2,"\3/ 4s&D)CAZu+/-y$fl9iay1/2DQ-Ua8Uo(R)i2#o#AiQZT3%og)Y vz0uk%HUNiO[OV[G@s._y,F^
i+/-eB(C)fYI-UyZW3E-ooef |*1/2O$RNuW3/4rm;sviCute8
HEQTlo;o:aj:]U 'IV3/4p: Osa2u'S/se
Ou
F#AEJ/moU7F|&9ueacw"fS-1/4f)

Old? (1)

Cliff (4114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8596345)

Your words:
Describe the applications of chroot. Why should you or shouldn't you use this to build "jails" for clients?
Old? It's still happening -- how can it be old?

With respect to your other points, I'd have no problem drumming up outrage (or counters) to your points, if you were willing to back them up with links or external citations. I'm perfectly willing to drum up and criticise the government in its abuses, no matter what party is in charge!

GAH! (1)

Cliff (4114) | more than 10 years ago | (#8596354)

No. Those weren't your words. CURSE Windows for it's lame cut and pasting facility! I'm too used to X11 where you can highlight and cut in one nice concise action.

The correct quote I wanted to refer to was:
But no, let's just keep hammering the ol' "Bush lied. People died." meme.
I will now be ridiculed in my own journal, and I deserve it. Such is life!

Oh, but it's quite amusing (1)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 10 years ago | (#8597648)

I was just reading the post that had the question about chroot in it so I even was able to follow the thread. :-D (The Linux Admin JE thread.)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...