[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: If you don't have anything to say in the Subject line, why should we expect you have anything to say in the message body?
Brian B. Riley wrote:
> Don'tget me wrong. It scares the hell out of me too, but maybe, in
> addition to that various things Tim has suggested we might also
> consider how to make the GAK as secure as cam be to minimize its
> potential for disaster.
Glad, you asked...
The reason I am posting as 'Fuck You' is that it saves time giving
my standard answer to the increasing number of idiots, schills, and
pawns on the CypherPunks list, these days.
Not that I'm complaining, you understand. I 'like' saying, "Fuck You."
I like it a lot. As a matter of fact, I like it so fucking much that I
am amazed that the fucking idiots who ought to know better like the
person who has stolen my Net persona more than me, just because she
has a great pair of tits.
Oh yeah...about the post I am replying to, here.
Brian. The bytes you saved by not including a Subject header were more
than wasted by the useless words you put in the message body.
Close, but no cigar, Bri. Let me rephrase that for you.
"we might also consider how to make the GAK as 'apparently' secure as
cam (bad grammar and spelling left intact) to minimize its potential for
There _is_ no 'secure' in the government computer lexicon, Bri. Not
even in the 'Cyphernomicon' will you find the word 'secure' found, used
as a substite for the phrase, "We're SAFE now, the government is using
Go back outside and come in again, next time with a Subject header and
a new list persona. You've pretty much ruined the one you're using now.