Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 16:22 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:d4f2j2pd9v2kgq2h1k4sqlih3hm0rg0ian(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:49:32 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>Yet all your examples are confined to the internet. COMSEC deals with much >>more than IP based communication. INFOSEC deals with even more. > > You're an idiot. Far more systems communicate in this manner than > merely those on the internet, dumbass. > > Everything is packetized these days. You continue to embarrass yourself with your replies. Please, if you want to disagree with me then spend a moment re-reading my post and try to work out what you actually disagree with. Your post is nonsense.
From: JoeBloe on 14 Oct 2006 16:22 On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:04:21 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> Gave us: >On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:18:26 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:36:51 +0100, Eeyore >><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>When does Bush get impeached ? >> >>Not worth the bother. His term expires in 2008. >> >>>When does the Republican Party get impeached ? >> >>Sorry, there's no provision for impeaching a party. >> >>But the real question is, why are you so obsessive about US politics? >>We ignore your politics, so it's only fair that you ignore ours. > >I know you already know the answer to this. You couldn't possibly not >know. So you must be just pretending ignorance. > >No one ignores the elephant in their midst. > Yet another retarded remark. And you were doing so well...
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 16:24 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:uef2j2hv3ldqpn5pegmbckdo7b6gpviqjs(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:54:36 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>Really? Well, I already know the answer to that. You are wrong. COMSEC is >>a >>concept and is not related to specific equipment. > > Bullshit. Ok genius, what equipment is it related to? Let us have the specifics. >> >>You have no idea what you are talking about here. >> > You must be looking in a mirror again. Wow, such cutting wit.
From: T Wake on 14 Oct 2006 16:28 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:1if2j212ni0sq8jlrhkuhnhihmc3bbql03(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:58:25 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: > >>COMSEC covers a conversation between two people which >>can be overheard. > > > Wrong again. That is only ONE aspect of what it "covers". Your posts make even less sense than normal. Are you high? In message news:uef2j2hv3ldqpn5pegmbckdo7b6gpviqjs(a)4ax.com you say my claim that COMSEC is a concept rather than relating to specific equipment is "bullshit," yet her you contradict that. You cant even maintain consistency between posts. Better still, you have misread my post even more than normal. Read my post and read your reply. You say I am wrong then agree with me. I didnt say COMSEC _only_ covers verbal communications. _YOUR_ previous posts imply it only covered packet data. You are chasing yourself into a hole. You are brilliant. I bet people get so pleased when you are on their side in an argument. > Can you really be so stupid? Nice one. Keep up the good work.
From: John Larkin on 14 Oct 2006 16:29
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:01:58 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:33:28 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:04:21 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan >><jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>But the real question is, why are you so obsessive about US politics? >>>>We ignore your politics, so it's only fair that you ignore ours. >>> >>>I know you already know the answer to this. You couldn't possibly not >>>know. So you must be just pretending ignorance. >>> >>>No one ignores the elephant in their midst. >> >>How is the US "in your midst?" > >You really are being insincere. I think you already know what I was >talking about. If not, I'm sorry for you, but not willing to play >some inane game with you on it. Everyone with any intelligence at all >knows exactly what's meant. > >Jon Can't argue with that sort of reasoning. John |