If you tell a fact in forest and you haven’t written a security book, is your fact wrong?
OK, I was going to leave this one alone, but it is just bothering me so much. A couple of weeks back, I wrote a blog post about a comment I had left on a post by Douglas Schweitzer’s at his Computerworld blog. Douglas said in his post that a bot was “essentially just another term for an infected computer.” I took issue with this and wrote a comment as such, then I posted the comment on my blog. I also noted that I wasn’t slamming Douglas in any way. I just felt the error needed to be corrected. Douglas argued on his blog that it was semantics, and that is probably true to a degree, but oh well. I let that go (actually I tried to post another comment on Douglas’ blog, but I think I put too many links in to prove my point because it never popped up – probably looked like spam).
But then out of the blue I get a comment tonight from somebody named David. He says, “And how many computer security books have you written? That’s what I thought…”. My comment to David was:
What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Do you worship Douglas or something?
Now, I realize that was probably not the most constructive of comebacks, but this really pisses me off. I guess my correct statement about what a bot is does not count because I have never written a book about security. How utterly moronic and completely stupid can you get? That is like saying you have to write a book on weather before you can say a tornado breaks stuff!
If it is because I was correcting someone that has written security books before, that is just as stupid. Writing a book does not make you infallible.
Vet
