> Ok, Wolf, help me clarify what you mean here:
>
> First you claimed, "They *were* breaking the law to make their point."
>
> Then in this last post you said, "However, I didn't wanted to validate their nonetheless illegal hacking by saying the said activities were *purposeful*.....The old-time hackers broke into networks because they could, but more importantly, in order to *prove* that they could, and get away with it."
>
> Possibly it's just me, but I find these statements to be contradictory. I think the old-time hackers did have a *purpose* and even though they went about it in a way that I don't agree with, doesn't mean they didn't have a purpose. I don't believe those guys had any real need to *prove* that they could do that stuff to anyone. But, in that, I could be wrong. Either way, they had a purpose.

Hoo! Please don't take this the wrong way, because we're more or less in agreement here, along the same wavelength (more on that, below). But I think you may have drawn conclusions by pulling my statements out of context. I did say:

"Acknowledging that they had a *directed goal* in mind is implicit in my post."

as well as,

"There is a difference between [positive] Conscientious Objection by breaking a stupid law... versus making your point by trampling over the rights [of others]..."

and finally, they liked to hack into networks,

"...in order to *prove* that they could [amongst themselves], and get away with it. It's basically a juvenile game of oneupmanship."


> Please let me know your thoughts...
>
> famous

So basically the confusion here is a question of semantics. I tend to think that when someone has stated a "purpose"... or a goal, an aim, or dreams to look forward to... That purpose is usually intended to be POSITIVE. This to me is simply a common but unstated usage of the word. I agree that a person can in fact have a negative purpose. But in common parlance, we tend to call it an "ulterior motive" instead, rather than a positive purpose. So when you say that the old-timers went about it by a method you disapprove of, I'm in agreement with you there. As to WHY they did it? Well... If they did NOT have anything to prove, why hack into somebody's system at all? It would be a waste of time and credibility if they just said they "could" hack NASA (for ex.) but never did. So the purpose -- or ulterior motive -- of the old-timers is less than admirable even though it was not destructive. That's why I think it was a game amongst themselves, one played to somewhat juvenile ends.

If you can forgive me the drawn-out explanation, I hope that clears things up somewhat...

Wolfspirit