On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>
wrote:

[skipped]

quoted text
> > I have to say that Perry here is credited with one thing he actually did
not
quoted text
> > do -- publish this to the world. There has been talk of alterior motives
here,
quoted text
> > but for any of these motives, Perry had to know or pretty damn well
guessed
quoted text
> > that B the second thing Theo (hi, Theo) would do to his email was to
publish it.
quoted text
> > Would you plan anything based on a predicted behavior of a person you
> > haven't communicated with in 10 years?
> >
> > This is not to point finger at Theo for creating all this commotion, of
course;
quoted text
> > this commotion can, however, be, an unintended accident, but the fact
that
quoted text
> > it came from Theo gave it a lot of credibility.
>
> Whoa, wait a second here. B If you think I gave it credibility, you
> need to go back and read my words again. B I called it an allegation,
> and I stick with that. B I was extremely careful with my words, and you
> are wrong to interpret them as you do.

Look, if somebody like me posted something like this here, it would be just
plain dismissed. If Perry posted his email here, he'd just be under fire to
show some or any proof. The reason this was so widely picked up
and generated so much flame and buzz, is because you posted it here.
It's an unfortunate consequence of a right action, really. I'm not even
remotely saying that you intended to give it weight, or that you
should've swept it under the rug.