From: david.florman on 7 Dec 2009 09:52 And what better place to recognize a day of deceit and treachery than here at sci.corrupt? Lest we have forgotten the question, Smug Doug Gwyn (sci.crypt expert) has either broken the Beale Ciphers as a direct result of my findings or he has not. And why can't I get an answer? Smug Doug Gwyn has stated does not believe in sharing information. So why is he a (sci.crypt expert)? And who says there's no such site as sci.corrupt?
From: Richard Herring on 7 Dec 2009 10:42 In message <023af724-bd37-4e96-975f-ffc6b87c7f15(a)19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, david.florman(a)att.net writes >no such site as sci.corrupt? ITYM "newsgroup". HTH. HAND. -- Richard Herring
From: Gordon Burditt on 8 Dec 2009 14:44 > And what better place to recognize a day of deceit and treachery >than here at sci.corrupt? Lest we have forgotten the question, Smug >Doug Gwyn (sci.crypt expert) has either broken the Beale Ciphers as a >direct result of my findings or he has not. There is no poster to sci.crypt with 'Smug' as part of the name. >And why can't I get an >answer? Answer from whom? >Smug Doug Gwyn has stated does not believe in sharing >information. So why is he a (sci.crypt expert)? Since there is no such person, he's not a "sci.crypt expert". >And who says there's >no such site as sci.corrupt? There is no .corrupt top-level domain, so there can't be a sci.corrupt site. Perhaps you were thinking of newsgroup names.
From: Phil Carmody on 9 Dec 2009 03:42 gordonb.fs2ax(a)burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) writes: >> And what better place to recognize a day of deceit and treachery >>than here at sci.corrupt? Lest we have forgotten the question, Smug >>Doug Gwyn (sci.crypt expert) has either broken the Beale Ciphers as a >>direct result of my findings or he has not. > > There is no poster to sci.crypt with 'Smug' as part of the name. > >>And why can't I get an >>answer? > > Answer from whom? That's freaking hilarious considering your inane attribution policy (namely, not to include one). Phil -- Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1
From: Noob on 9 Dec 2009 04:41 Phil Carmody wrote: > That's freaking hilarious considering your inane attribution > policy (namely, not to include one). If he's really using trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) perhaps he should consider an upgrade?
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: monoalphabetic substitution cipher Next: How many will Kruh bamboozle today? |