Re: [SAGE] Re: Official sudosh announcement

[William LeFebvre <bill@lefebvre.org>]

Brad Knowles wrote:
 >     The problem is that both Bill and Adam were not that constructive in
 > the way they presented their criticism.  Yes, they had valid points.
 > But their reactions were pretty much universally negative and did not
 > acknowledge the positive aspects of the work.

You are incorrect, sir.

It was not in my first or my second message (or perhaps even my third 
message) on this subject, but in one of my responses to Mr. Hanks I most 
certainly did say "I think sudosh is a great idea!  I like it and I thank 
you for sharing it with the community."

My objection and my negativism rests solely with his claim that his tool 
provides "accountability with Sarbanes and Oxley".  In and of itself it 
does not. It still requires a secure and reliable message transport 
mechanism underneath it, a point which even now Mr. Hanks refuses to 
admit.  And I see this omission on his part as disingenuous, which Webster 
defines as "lacking in candor, giving a false appearance of simple 
frankness."  If others care to see this view as posturing an "attitude", 
then so be it.

--
Bill