«

Mr. Tenet said.
Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited
to those who can show they take security seriously,

http://tinyurl.com/4f73p
or
http://www.washingtontimes.com/funct...1-114750-6381r

<> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Mr. Tenet said.
> Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited
> to those who can show they take security seriously,
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4f73p
> or
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/funct...1-114750-6381r
>
>

Hrm this one has the potential of turning into a spicy thread eh.

- Jay

wrote:

> Mr. Tenet said.
> Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be
> limited
> to those who can show they take security seriously,
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4f73p
> or
>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/funct...1-114750-6381r

Hmm. I think this is a non-starter from the get-go. To begin with; I
don't know why the musings of a retiree (even from the CIA) are
particularly news-worthy (aside from the 'buzz' factor). With all due
respect to my American cousins; I have to believe that people that are
involved in 'the industry', or are even casual users of the technology,
realize that putting a 'national lid' on it is the daydream of even the
feistiest dinosaur in China, let alone in an less-abashedly
entrepreneurial nation.
I don't mind living beside the US, as its people (like those of most
nations) are not as dumb as their 'leaders'. Any attempt to restrict
access to global information or communication to *any* resident of the
USA would only accomplish exactly the opposite of the intent: an
American renaissance in technological subterfuge, with a ground-swell of
Freedom-lovin' Popular support.
--
"Even the politicians know this. That's why you hear 'these things' from
grumpy old retired guys that can talk by flapping their arse-cheeks."

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:49:54 -0800 "trout"
used 31 lines of text to write in newsgroup: 24hoursupport.helpdesk

> wrote:
>
>> Mr. Tenet said.
>> Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be
>> limited
>> to those who can show they take security seriously,
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/4f73p
>> or
>>
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/funct...1-114750-6381r
>
> Hmm. I think this is a non-starter from the get-go. To begin with; I
>don't know why the musings of a retiree (even from the CIA) are
>particularly news-worthy (aside from the 'buzz' factor). With all due
>respect to my American cousins; I have to believe that people that are
>involved in 'the industry', or are even casual users of the technology,
>realize that putting a 'national lid' on it is the daydream of even the
>feistiest dinosaur in China, let alone in an less-abashedly
>entrepreneurial nation.
> I don't mind living beside the US, as its people (like those of most
>nations) are not as dumb as their 'leaders'. Any attempt to restrict
>access to global information or communication to *any* resident of the
>USA would only accomplish exactly the opposite of the intent: an
>American renaissance in technological subterfuge, with a ground-swell of
>Freedom-lovin' Popular support.


Good post. For once we are in 100% agreement.


--
-Graham

Remove the 'snails' from my email

Gorgan the Pointless wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:49:54 -0800 "trout"
> used 31 lines of text to write in newsgroup: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mr. Tenet said.
>>> Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be
>>> limited
>>> to those who can show they take security seriously,
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4f73p
>>> or
>>>
>>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/funct...1-114750-6381r
>>
>> Hmm. I think this is a non-starter from the get-go. To begin
>> with; I
>> don't know why the musings of a retiree (even from the CIA) are
>> particularly news-worthy (aside from the 'buzz' factor). With all due
>> respect to my American cousins; I have to believe that people that
>> are
>> involved in 'the industry', or are even casual users of the
>> technology,
>> realize that putting a 'national lid' on it is the daydream of even
>> the feistiest dinosaur in China, let alone in an less-abashedly
>> entrepreneurial nation.
>> I don't mind living beside the US, as its people (like those of
>> most nations) are not as dumb as their 'leaders'. Any attempt to
>> restrict
>> access to global information or communication to *any* resident of
>> the
>> USA would only accomplish exactly the opposite of the intent: an
>> American renaissance in technological subterfuge, with a
>> ground-swell of Freedom-lovin' Popular support.
>
>
> Good post. For once we are in 100% agreement.

How very fortunate, then, that you've kept your sticky little
fingers glued to my pantleg, whilst stalking me about the newsgroup and
making your charming gurgles of trollish disapproval.
--
"**** off, wad. I don't need the 'approval' of a thieving bucket of
trolling crap."

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:18:14 -0800 "trout"
used 49 lines of text to write in newsgroup: 24hoursupport.helpdesk

> How very fortunate, then, that you've kept your sticky little
>fingers glued to my pantleg, whilst stalking me about the newsgroup and
>making your charming gurgles of trollish disapproval.
>--
>"**** off, wad. I don't need the 'approval' of a thieving bucket of
>trolling crap."


Don't mistake my agreement with you for approval. You're still a lying
candy-ass Canuck.


--
-Graham

Remove the 'snails' from my email

Gorgan the Troubled wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:18:14 -0800 "trout"
> used 49 lines of text to write in newsgroup: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
>
>> How very fortunate, then, that you've kept your sticky little
>> fingers glued to my pantleg, whilst stalking me about the newsgroup
>> and making your charming gurgles of trollish disapproval.
>> --
>> "**** off, wad. I don't need the 'approval' of a thieving bucket of
>> trolling crap."
>
>
> Don't mistake my agreement with you for approval. You're still a
> lying candy-ass Canuck.

I most assuredly do not care.
Let me speak plainly, so that even *you* can understand this simple
point. It is not even a divergence of views. There are currently at
*least* two other people posting regularly in this newsgroup whose
opinion on the matter of 'intellectual theft' are diametrically opposed
to my own.
Do you know what the difference is, Graham? I can respect *them* for
their honesty (as far as being straighforward, and unapologetic) and
intellect (putting forward a rationale that I can at least believe that
*they* believe in); both areas in which you are gravely lacking.
I will say this one more time. You are stupid, as well as being a
thief (and an annoying little twit that decided to start following me
around, yipping like a needy poodle). That is an unpleasant combination.
You seem to find it annoying to hear me say this; yet you constantly
pant along behind, nipping at my heels, until I pay attention to you.
This is the *very definition* of trolling. You *are* now a troll.
You have the troll's delight at having someone notice that you've
shown-up, unarmed, and demanding a battle of wits. You bask in *any*
attention; good, bad, or indifferent. Again. Troll.
In summation, this is why I dislike you, have *zero* respect for
you, and now resent you wasting my time to the point where I will
summarily humiliate you whenever you drag your sorry, trolling,
stalking, theiving ass someplace that I have to look at you. If anyone w
onders why, I'll refer them to this post.
If you still have enough self-hatred that you seek this, fine. I'm
not going to killfile you, and allow you to snipe at every-other post at
will. But *this* is the last 'real' attention you're getting.
There are people that I relish even as a 'foe' or 'adversary'. You,
however, are pointless and slow, and mal-formed, and just not worth the
attention that you seek with your moronic mewling.
--
"You disgust me. **** off."

I was walking down the street, minding my own business, when on Thu,
2 Dec 2004 22:26:25 -0800, "trout" <> screamed from
behind the mulberry bush:

>Gorgan the Troubled wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:18:14 -0800 "trout"
>> used 49 lines of text to write in newsgroup: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
>>
>>> How very fortunate, then, that you've kept your sticky little
>>> fingers glued to my pantleg, whilst stalking me about the newsgroup
>>> and making your charming gurgles of trollish disapproval.
>>> --
>>> "**** off, wad. I don't need the 'approval' of a thieving bucket of
>>> trolling crap."
>>
>>
>> Don't mistake my agreement with you for approval. You're still a
>> lying candy-ass Canuck.
>
> I most assuredly do not care.
> Let me speak plainly, so that even *you* can understand this simple
>point. It is not even a divergence of views. There are currently at
>*least* two other people posting regularly in this newsgroup whose
>opinion on the matter of 'intellectual theft' are diametrically opposed
>to my own.
> Do you know what the difference is, Graham? I can respect *them* for
>their honesty (as far as being straighforward, and unapologetic) and
>intellect (putting forward a rationale that I can at least believe that
>*they* believe in); both areas in which you are gravely lacking.
> I will say this one more time. You are stupid, as well as being a
>thief (and an annoying little twit that decided to start following me
>around, yipping like a needy poodle). That is an unpleasant combination.
>You seem to find it annoying to hear me say this; yet you constantly
>pant along behind, nipping at my heels, until I pay attention to you.
> This is the *very definition* of trolling. You *are* now a troll.
>You have the troll's delight at having someone notice that you've
>shown-up, unarmed, and demanding a battle of wits. You bask in *any*
>attention; good, bad, or indifferent. Again. Troll.
> In summation, this is why I dislike you, have *zero* respect for
>you, and now resent you wasting my time to the point where I will
>summarily humiliate you whenever you drag your sorry, trolling,
>stalking, theiving ass someplace that I have to look at you. If anyone w
>onders why, I'll refer them to this post.
> If you still have enough self-hatred that you seek this, fine. I'm
>not going to killfile you, and allow you to snipe at every-other post at
>will. But *this* is the last 'real' attention you're getting.
> There are people that I relish even as a 'foe' or 'adversary'. You,
>however, are pointless and slow, and mal-formed, and just not worth the
>attention that you seek with your moronic mewling.

You know, you should just kill file the little **** and get it over
with. It will eventually feel better, much like lancing a boil.

HTH

Dr. Harvie Wahl-Banghor wrote:
> You know, you should just kill file the little **** and get it over
> with. It will eventually feel better, much like lancing a boil.
>
> HTH

Oh, I will. It would be dumb *not* to. I just won't give him the
comfort of knowing when/that I have. And probably not while I can't look
down without seeing him trying to rhythmically procreate with my shoe.
--
"Still trying to figure when the little baggage squirted out the *last*
time. Probably during a 'general reprieve' when I shake out the
temp-morphs."

"trout" <> wrote in message
news:...
> wrote:
>
>> Mr. Tenet said.
>> Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be
>> limited
>> to those who can show they take security seriously,
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/4f73p
>> or
>>
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/funct...1-114750-6381r
>
> Hmm. I think this is a non-starter from the get-go. To begin with; I
> don't know why the musings of a retiree (even from the CIA) are
> particularly news-worthy (aside from the 'buzz' factor). With all due
> respect to my American cousins; I have to believe that people that are
> involved in 'the industry', or are even casual users of the technology,
> realize that putting a 'national lid' on it is the daydream of even the
> feistiest dinosaur in China, let alone in an less-abashedly
> entrepreneurial nation.
> I don't mind living beside the US, as its people (like those of most
> nations) are not as dumb as their 'leaders'. Any attempt to restrict
> access to global information or communication to *any* resident of the
> USA would only accomplish exactly the opposite of the intent: an
> American renaissance in technological subterfuge, with a ground-swell of
> Freedom-lovin' Popular support.

I think you may be overestimating America and Americans at this time. It's
all about fear now. The sheep are afraid and they want a shepherd to keep
them safe. Thinks like privacy, freedom and civil liberties are so pre-9/11.
Just look at popular support for the (horribly misnamed) USA PATRIOT Act
which allows access to library and bookstore records, "sneak and peak"
warrants issued by secret courts, the embrace of torture as an investigative
tool, indefinite detention without charge or trial and on and on. Where is
the "ground-swell of Freedom-lovin Popular support" rising up against these
things?