Ok guys, I have the end-all solution to this debate at hand: If you're "paranoid", don't answer the question. If you aren't, do answer the question. There ya go!

What Pooh and Tiger have so well demonstrated is that every security guru is going to have his/her own philosophy. Neither point of view is necessarily right or wrong, but comes from the shaping of experience. Despite my own lack of experience thus far, I've had enough to understand both viewpoints. Tiger, keep being paranoid, and Pooh, keep being generous, and as long as you let each other handle things your own way, things'll work without a hitch. Maybe you two are here to balance each other out in some greater AntiOnline fate.

But as long as each of you tries to convince the other to the opposing viewpoint, it'll just go on and on while the rest of us are left asking "What was the question again?"

On another note, it's important for newbies to understand that truth is, more of us are highly paranoid than not, and should learn to expect the sketpical prodding questions without taking it personally. Don't be offended by them, just accept them as normal and keep asking your questions, and learn from what causes the vets to ask these questions in the first place. That is a valuable lesson. I learned that quickly as a newbie, and am actually suprised some of my own questions haven't been scrutinized yet.