This can't be good.

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Pennywise@DerryMaine.gov, Dec 3, 2004.

  1. Guest

    , Dec 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jay Guest

    Jay, Dec 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. trout Guest

    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/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041201-114750-6381r

    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."
     
    trout, Dec 3, 2004
    #3
  4. G. Morgan Guest

    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/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041201-114750-6381r
    >
    > 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
     
    G. Morgan, Dec 3, 2004
    #4
  5. trout Guest

    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/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041201-114750-6381r
    >>
    >> 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."
     
    trout, Dec 3, 2004
    #5
  6. G. Morgan Guest

    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
     
    G. Morgan, Dec 3, 2004
    #6
  7. trout Guest

    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."
     
    trout, Dec 3, 2004
    #7
  8. 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, Dec 3, 2004
    #8
  9. trout Guest

    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, Dec 3, 2004
    #9
  10. "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/functions/print.php?StoryID=20041201-114750-6381r
    >
    > 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?
     
    Oxford Systems, Dec 3, 2004
    #10
  11. SgtMinor Guest

    SgtMinor, Dec 3, 2004
    #11
  12. G. Morgan Guest

    On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:26:25 -0800 "trout"
    used 50 lines of text to write in newsgroup: 24hoursupport.helpdesk

    >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 an a pedophile.
    > 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.



    hehehehe... right click my name and hit "block sender" you stupid ****.

    I'll say this again so *you* can understand. I am not a thief and you can not
    prove I stole anything. You're pissed off because your little complaint letter
    got nowhere, as I told you it would. Now listen good mister - YOU "**** off"
    okay? I explained my position about the Win98SE torrent I posted. You were too
    pissed off about your hissy-fit to my NNTP provider not amounting to anything
    you must have ignored it. That's your problem.


    As far as you calling me a "troll" I'll accept that. That's what you get when
    you go around making false accusations, you pedophile.



    --
    -Graham

    Remove the 'snails' from my email
     
    G. Morgan, Dec 3, 2004
    #12
  13. trout Guest

    G. Morgan the Thieving, Stalking, Post-editing Troll wrote:

    > I'll say this again so *you* can understand.


    Once again, your actions speak much more loudly than you halting,
    stuttered, semi-literate yammering.
    You advocate, defend and recommend theivery. You're a thief.
    Here you are again, with your nose up my ass in yet *another* thread.
    Trolling, post-editing; and once again *proving yourself* to be a
    dishonest, morally-bankrupt, lying sack of shit. As well as a bumbling
    wad.
    Yap your fool ass, all you want, you pathetic, drooling little
    troll.
    --
    "Let there be *no* doubt left about what you are."
     
    trout, Dec 6, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?bmV0bnV0?=

    Signs are good, but WAN no good

    =?Utf-8?B?bmV0bnV0?=, Aug 15, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,269
    =?Utf-8?B?THVjYSBGLg==?=
    Aug 21, 2004
  2. Daveyboy
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    750
  3. Hugo Drax

    JLO situation+ why fastglass is good+DSLR is good

    Hugo Drax, Jan 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    410
    Hugo Drax
    Jan 17, 2004
  4. LAshooter
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    486
    LAshooter
    Jun 25, 2005
  5. Lawrence M. Seldin, CMC, CPC

    Any good free spyware scan that I can run in bat file so I can schedule it daily

    Lawrence M. Seldin, CMC, CPC, Jun 21, 2007, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    662
    David H. Lipman
    Jun 22, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page