Thieving posties
in [UK Mac]
|
From: John DoH on 24 Jun 2010 17:57 In article <71e2574f-d702-4c5b-b9a1-df76889ded9c(a)5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 24 June, 15:24, real-address-in-...(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid > (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > > The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-...(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > What I was asking about, you see, was about a way of doing this which > > > > had been demonstrated safe-enough. > > > > > No, you weren't. You didn't ask if anyone had actually *demonstrated* > > > such a system. You asked for suggestions. You used the present tense, > > > not the past. > > > > > But carry on moving the goalposts if you want. > > > > Actually, the reality of things is clearly visible in this thread, and > > it's interesting to see that you accuse me of moving the goalposts when > > that's your game. > > > > Let's see what *really* happened, shall we children? �Yes, let's! > > In Message-ID: > > <1jkisui.dhbqrp1rnjmi0N%real-address-in-...(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Something like <http://isendr.com/> ? > > > > Is there any way to tell if a site like that is safe, at all? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Then there was this in > > Message-ID: > > <1jkjqle.1wh806b14kx393N%real-address-in-...(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-...(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > Is there any way to tell if a site like that is safe, at all? > > > > > Use it until it's proved otherwise. > > > > > Simples. > > > > For those who like gambling with that kind of thing. > > > > For those who do not? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > None of that meets your claims for what actually happened - shame that > > reality exists, isn't it? �Your personal opinions are not the definitive > > statement of history, you know. > > Oh dear. Go back and read it again, and you'll see I'm correct. > Absolutely no request for a previously demonstrated-safe means. > Poifect. > > > > I suggest you just drop your personal comments about me in this > > technical newsgroup meant for techncial discussion. > > > > What personal comments? You didn't accept his word for it, you faulted something he said or you disagreed with him. -- "Telling someone to kill themselves is not harmful: it's merely me expressing an opinion. You try to drive people to suicide - that's evil. My behaviour is perfectly okay; your behaviour is evil - plain and simple evil." Rowland McDonnell - 9th. Mar. 2009
From: John DoH on 24 Jun 2010 17:59 In article <88fe1uFe82U1(a)mid.individual.net>, James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-23 22:14:22 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older > Gentleman) said: > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > >> TOG(a)Toil <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > >>>> The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-...(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Is there any way to tell if a site like that is safe, at all? > >>>> > >>>>> Use it until it's proved otherwise. > >>>> > >>>>> Simples. > >>>> > >>>> For those who like gambling with that kind of thing. > >>>> > >>>> For those who do not? > >>>> > >>> Whinging about it on Usenet. > >> > >> Thank you for your helpful contribution. > >> > > <Shrug> > > > > I'm not the one who's having stuff nicked in the mail. > > > > And I'm the one who knows more about internet fraud than you, as I've > > intimated before. > > > > Treat everything as hostile until proven otherwise. > > Trust me, he does know a lot. Nice one, James, you will soon be getting an invite to The Wirral:-) -- "Telling someone to kill themselves is not harmful: it's merely me expressing an opinion. You try to drive people to suicide - that's evil. My behaviour is perfectly okay; your behaviour is evil - plain and simple evil." Rowland McDonnell - 9th. Mar. 2009
From: Peter Ceresole on 24 Jun 2010 23:51 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Indeed, what I meant when I said that I used dropbox but not for secure > things. In this context it means my files, not work files. Yes, I understood what you meant and I agree with you. What concerns me is that there seems to be a paranoia about meaningless 'security'. This causes endless complications and increases costs for all of us who are not concerned by it. There *are* secure methods available, such as encryption which is perfectly adequate for anybody except the maddest, and which I don't use, and have no wish to do so. And, as we discussed already, sneakernet, which however has severe limitations for 'normal' communications. But I'm curious about human behaviour, about why people should be so paranoid about 'security' when they don't need to be, and yet in endless cases about which we repeatedly read, keep emails that incriminate them. It's the sheer stupidity of human behaviour that surprises me. What goes on inside peoples' skulls. -- Peter
From: D.M. Procida on 25 Jun 2010 02:38 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > But I'm curious about human behaviour, about why people should be so > paranoid about 'security' when they don't need to be, and yet in endless > cases about which we repeatedly read, keep emails that incriminate them. That's not stupidity, just bad understanding of risk. Daniele
From: Rowland McDonnell on 25 Jun 2010 03:13
The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > But the only way to tell if a site is safe - which is what I asked for - > > is if it has been demonstrated safe. > > No, you didn't. > > > > > My requests contained the implicit assumption that the site has been > > /demonstrated/ safe. > > No, they didn't. > > Wrongo! Yes, naturally you state that. Your behaviour is very odd - whatever point I make, you snip the actual details, sneer at me, and state that I am certainly wrong based on nothing more than your personal judgement. You do make an interesting psychological study, you know that? I really cannot get my head round your behaviour, I really can't. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |