Thieving posties
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 25 Jun 2010 03:13 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > 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'. What concerns me is that you characterize my behaviour as `increasing paranoia about meaningless `security'' That's just the usual personal niggling put in to denigrate my opinions generally - and it's not only unfair debating tactics, but also very insulting. - not to mention dissing everyone like me who is simply carrying on as they always have done with respect to computer data security. >This causes endless complications and increases costs for > all of us who are not concerned by it. [snip] Certainly not - that's the braindead attitude which caused MS Windoze to be the least secure widely used OS on the 'net, and to remain that way to this date. The idea that it's `paranoid' to have a care for data security and so not use any computer service until I've checked that it's straight and legit seems like just sensible normal behaviour for any sensible normal human being. After all, would you trust anyone with your confidential data? You seem to be suggesting that anyone who's not perfectly trusting of everyone else in the world is `paranoid' and concerned with `meaningless security'. The fact that you don't have anything except this ad hominem attack - your opinion that normal concern for normal personal data security in the normal way is `paranoid' and `meaningless' does rather imply to me that you don't have any real case at all - just personal bigotry on your part. 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
From: John DoH on 25 Jun 2010 03:53 In article <1jkmudc.gxefmk1b1d8lvN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > 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? Ah, are you claiming to be a psychologist as well? > > I really cannot get my head round your behaviour, I really can't. That's nothing new, Rowland, you have been puzzled for years. > > Rowland. -- "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 25 Jun 2010 03:58 In article <1jkmuhz.xv036s1py1vqhN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > 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'. > > What concerns me is that you characterize my behaviour as `increasing > paranoia about meaningless `security'' > > That's just the usual personal niggling put in to denigrate my opinions > generally - and it's not only unfair debating tactics, but also very > insulting. - not to mention dissing everyone like me who is simply > carrying on as they always have done with respect to computer data > security. > > >This causes endless complications and increases costs for > > all of us who are not concerned by it. > [snip] > > Certainly not - that's the braindead attitude which caused MS Windoze to > be the least secure widely used OS on the 'net, and to remain that way > to this date. > > The idea that it's `paranoid' to have a care for data security and so > not use any computer service until I've checked that it's straight and > legit seems like just sensible normal behaviour for any sensible normal > human being. > > After all, would you trust anyone with your confidential data? > > You seem to be suggesting that anyone who's not perfectly trusting of > everyone else in the world is `paranoid' and concerned with `meaningless > security'. > > The fact that you don't have anything except this ad hominem attack - > your opinion that normal concern for normal personal data security in > the normal way is `paranoid' and `meaningless' does rather imply to me > that you don't have any real case at all - just personal bigotry on your > part. Steady on now Rowland. Don't work yourself up into a frenzy, take a deep breath. You have been doing so well and now you seem to have worked round to a manic phase again, don't let it get the best of you, which of course isn't that good to start with. > > Rowland. -- "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 25 Jun 2010 04:10 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > After all, would you trust anyone with your confidential data? I've covered that specific point in my post; I don't have any 'confidential" data. I have data, but it's not confidential. > What concerns me is that you characterize my behaviour as `increasing > paranoia about meaningless `security'' Precisely. > There's obviously no possible way of engaging you in a discussion of > this point, since you clearly have no conception of proper computer data > security. I can't understand your conception of it. Why do you imagine that you *need* 'proper computer data security'. I don't feel that I need it; I'm interested to know why you think you do. -- Peter
From: The Older Gentleman on 25 Jun 2010 13:52
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > Wrongo! > > Yes, naturally you state that. Yes, I do, because you made no such statement and now you're trying to wriggle. Now, there's a phrase for that... dammit, haven't heard it for years... <Ponders> <fx: light bulb> Oh, yes! Dance, boi. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com |