Idiot!

YOU JERK!

What a piece of slime!

He is a really nasty person.

I now conclude from your constant posting of sniping, digs, personal attack, etc. and the tiny ratio of substance to the total of your posts that you are a nut case.

You're behaving like an an ass now.

Slime award of the day. Also clears up just who (as a  typical example) is doing the provoking around here.

Congratulations. You win the "Hypocrite of the Year" award.

The remark of an analytic incompetent.

If you could stop being such a jerk we might get along better in  these discussions.

Your offensive language deserves the jerk alarm, but I'll  try to be forbearing.

Another dunce analogy.

Whassa matter, problems with Daddy while growing up?

Aha! Now we see your snake-like head peeping out above the tall  grass, despite your posturing about "innocent until proven guilty".  What hypocrisy!

You seem not only to be ignorant of economic calculus but  of simple ethical calculus.

Did you miss the class on metaphor in bonehead English?

Sorry to learn you're both powerless and judgement challenged.

What IS wrong with you that you feel the need constantly  to attempt to marginalize those who disagree with you  in this discussion?

That [name deleted] repeatedly seizes on this as an opportunity  for personal attack reveals his mental age and need for adult  supervision yet again (cf. "moron").

Your arguments are starting to get moronic.

I suppose you're also the sort of person who kicks a poor  or handicapped man and denies scholarships to a college student  because "he can always go to work".

I cannot believe Boeing is hiring people like you these days.  By copy, I'll let them check if that's so or if this post is a  crude forgery from a non-employee.

You simply won't read, will you?

Your sloth in doing the most obvious homework is only exceeded by  your lack of reading comprehension.

Oh, goody. A dictionary-challenged reader with a cheap dictionary  who wants to argue dictionary meanings.

In fact your argument is yet another nutty one.

As for your attempt to demonstrate contradictions, that's more a  sign of your failure to think carefully.

You have contact with the dead denied the rest of us?

Another jerk post misrepresenting what I said.

I do not plonk as a threat, nor as punishment. I have already  explained my plonking policy. Perhaps a course in reading  comprehension will be helpful to you.

He's not only a moron but an arrogant ass to think that he can take something like "Plonk!" and pretend it's a permanent promise so he can cry "Liar!" when someone decides to read a few messages. I'll plonk whom I wish when I wish and for how long I wish. Let him take his petty little game to the elementary school playground where it belongs.

Your reply to a putative statement of fact is both vacuous and arrogant.

Who was it who was talking about arrogance just now?  Another spoiled brat speaking?

At this point I'm so disgusted I'm not going to read his  post any further, much less comment on it.

If you don't want to read my posts, by all means don't read them.  But blathering about it here marks you as a juvenile, and trying  to tell other readers what to do marks you as a jerk.

So much anger. A sure sign of a very weak position.

I'm tired of the whining of ignorami with an anti-government axe to grind on this topic. Do your homework!

Goebbel's "big lie" technique won't fool anyone who has been paying  attention but will rather serve further to expose your debating techniques.

I never bluster or babble. But you seem to be doing so in the above material. Projection?

I was programming some of the first modern computers at MIT in 1952, likely before you were a gleam in your father's eye. I wrote part of Fortran for IBM in the late '50s when it was THE high-level language. I wrote one of the first programs for aircraft wing design for NASA's predecessor, the Wright Air Development Center. I developed a computer program for engineering/economic ship design that won my then employer three one-Billion dollar competitions. Don't let my Ph.D. in economics lead you into stereotyping.

Why do some smart, but vastly inexperienced people adopt an arrogant  and offensive "if you disagree with what I think you're a luser" tone  and the deliberate giving of unprovoked offense? Is it insecurity?

See a patent attorney.

You continue to demonstrate your defamatory style for even the most  ill-educated among your colleagues to see.

That is also factually inaccurate as well as offensively phrased. I don't think much of a company whose employees post the kind of  nonsense you have.

More attempted suppression of opinions that are different from yours?

I see nothing in the quote from me which would justify your gratuitously  offensive tone.

This is about as pellucid as it is going to get.

Given the lack of integrity in your argumentation there's  little point in continuing.

I never said, or even implied that. I think this conversation is now over.

Taking my quote out of context to change the meaning completely  is the sort of sliming I've gotten used to here. Shame on you.

I don't know where you get this stuff.

To denigrate them is both arrogant and brain-dead.

As for your attempt to demonstrate contradictions, that's more  a sign of your failure to think carefully.

He's seems incapable of doing the simplest homework, and that he resorts to personal attack when challenged on the facts suggests a character defect.

Another personal attack based on animus and misrepresentation.

Perhaps readers understand why you are on my filter list, given the combination of nonsense, distortion, and personal attack you post.

Did they not teach you conditional clauses and the subjunctive  mode when you were learning our mother tongue?

Do you have some problem with historical and policy analysis works?

At this point you've discredited yourself as a serious correspondent  with your language so put it where the sun don't shine--I'm not  going to waste any more time on your post. But waste not, want not,  so I'll post the work I've done up to the point of your farting  in the public space.

Very droll. Nothing like a good ad hominem when logic fails.

Sorry to waste bytes teaching you what you should have known if you  are going to throw "ad hominem" around, but perhaps others might be  spared your errors as a result.

Your comment reads like the kind of logic kids use to try to show  a logical inconsistency in what Daddy said to do, in order to try  to avoid it somehow.

This is not the place to ask questions which require us to post  a textbook seriatim in order to educate you.

(8/26/95) Read "Building in Big Brother" (to which I've repeatedly given  pointers) for some of the details. (8/28/95) For those seriously interested in the factual and  policy background on this topic, I leave it with a pointer  to "Building in Big Brother" by Prof. Lance J. Hoffman,  Springer-Verlag 1995, for the last time. (8/28/95) In addition to "Building In Big Brother" to which I've already given a pointer.... (1/25/96) I suggest you read "Building in Big Brother" by Prof.  Lance J. Hoffman if you want to contribute to this discussion  rather than spew. (4/8/96) Or maybe you should read "Building In Big Brother"  published by Springer Verlag and edited by Prof. Lance J.  Hoffman to find out what the big boys' analyses and policy  thinking has been over the past few years. (5/23/96) Despite your posturing there's no sign from your  posts that you've read the seminal work on this policy matter,  "Building in Big Brother" edited by Prof. Lance J. Hoffman. (1/4/97) I suggest you read Prof. Lance J. Hoffman's book  "Building in Big Brother--the Cryptographic Policy Debate... (2/28/97) Here's a quote a Wall St. Journal article on April  24, 1994 as reprinted in "Building in Big Brother", ed. Prof.  Lance J. Hoffman, Springer Verlag 1995:... (3/18/97) Or reread "Building In Big Brother". (5/21/97) The history with respect to PGP is not only on  record here, but in "Building in Big Brother" by Prof. Lance  J. Hoffmann (Springer Verlag)....

(11/1/95) And by the way, I minored in math at MIT, so don't  throw that around. (4/14/96) I was programming some of the first modern computers  at MIT in 1952, likely before you were a gleam in your father's  eye....I minored in electrical engineering as an undergrad at  MIT and computer courses were my concentration in that  department. You were saying?

Using a standard dictionary, widely accepted and used in many  major colleges and universities, I showed that his dictionary  selection was flawed, his meaning was inapt, and his conclusion bogus.

All your constant name-calling and defamation does is to  provide more publicity. Maybe I should heed Mark Twain's  advice and send you a check instead of a lawyer's  letter. And some lithium.

We have seen, often enough, your propensity to use name-calling  instead of thinking and arguing a tight syllogism. We already know  who you are. And your use of the exclusive "sophistry, nonsense,  or simply false" suggests you are the most offensive kind of  special pleader.

Another kiddie coward posting behind a phony address, and too  brain-damaged to check the facts of the discussion.

To the best of my ability I don't use ad hominem.

Thus his past trust-related behavior is quite relevant, and to  raise it is not ad hominem in any way.

You still don't get it. There's only one of me, and I always  comment based on rational and logical analysis as I see it.

My mother taught me that once a thug, always a thug.

He apologized as best he could and in fairly decent style.  Sounds like an adult to me. You, on the other hand, post  like a mental defective as shown both by your rudeness and your spelling.

It is again indicative of the writer's biased and pejorative tone.

Perhaps we're dealing with a logic-challenged individual here.  The record certainly has been accumulating along those lines.  Perhaps it is a waste of time to continue to field this kind  of ill-thought-through nonsense.

Perhaps the writer is more comfortable in a fascist state  where "power to the people" means power only to him and  those who agree with him.

It's just that sort of malevolent distortion of my words that  makes it hard to have a straight conversation with you.

According to my standard reference, (Merriam Webster's  Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition)...

Once again the evil twin has shown his ignorance, in his  graceless and deliberately offensive style.

Get your head out from where the sun don't shine and look around.

Delusions of grandeur on your part.

Finally, face it; PGP, albeit useful for some niche  applications, is a little pissant pimple on the body  of cryptographic usage.

Are you one of those who thinks the great Irish potato  famine, in which tens of thousands died was "a problem  in economic adjustment"? That the Black Death was "a local  sanitation disagreement"?

I guess you missed economics in college.

Is there some mechanism in the net which is censoring part  of my posts? Is it part of the net, or is it something some  local tyrant put in?

My friend Prof. Isaac Asimov gave me some thiotimoline,  and I've saved it up for use in special cases such as yours.

You clearly haven't been reading. I suggest you do so.

You know, [name deleted], readers must be getting pretty tired  of your posts, which constantly denigrate others and have never  had anything substantive or constructive to offer. You get my  double award for "Weakest ego on the Internet" and "Most  insecure person posting to this group".

I've never been subjected to a cease and desist letter for  infringement, never been sued for breach of contract, never  been accused of withholding royalties due, never been accused  of violating no-OEM provisions of a contract, never been accused  of withholding required financial accountings.

Nice try at an ad hominem attack to divert attention  from the substantive point.

Such groups are composed of amateurs and untutored users, with  the occasional lightly-skilled expert and a fair share of  ideologically-blinded dunces.

I can't decide whether to give you the arrogance award,  the contempt for one's fellow man citation,  or the broad  horselaugh for that one.

You are going to crack into little bits one day. That kind  of rigid personality structure cannot be sustained.

Another moron wrote: [quoted post segment followed by] Your  assertions are in violation of the introductory Netiquette  guidelines for reading newsgroups, as was he. Adult supervision  has been offered you in that form. That you neglect it confirms  the status referred to in the salutation of this post.

Given your aggressive, chip-on-the-shoulder tone (which you may  not be aware of), you got the answer you deserved.

Please, please do your homework and post like a mensch instead  of an aggressive playground bully.

My initial posts are sometimes followed by flames which I try  to respond to with reason and logical syllogisms; evidence  and rationality. Those who provoke with their tone sometimes  get their own back in addition to, not instead of a logical  response. When they ignore the logic and it becomes clear  they're simply posting nonsense and personal attack, or  repeating assertions that have been refuted, of course  I stop the conversation. It's the sign of an adult to move  on when the ground has been covered. Repeatedly. As to you,  personally, your tone WAS childish and offensive, and you  DIDN'T read the prior posts in which the questions you  raised were answered. Please don't project your own failings  onto others.

Is this some philosophy of science homework assignment  about bogus argumentation?

Projecting your own deficiencies in logic, grammar, and  reading ability onto others and labelling your defects  the intellectual dishonesty of others fools no one but yourself.

Your dishonest polemics would be ignorable if they weren't  so laughable. As readers here know very well, when I've been  convinced by evidence and/or logic, I've publicly reversed  myself--even in some pretty spectacular ways such as my  current opposition to the Digital Telephony Act and to mandatory  key escrow or recovery.

I think given the silliness to which you're descending this  is as good a time for me to stop any further replying.