On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:04:41 -0800, Trevor Myner <tmyner@sessions.net>
wrote:
>Gosh, Master Yoda, it really seemed to me likeasking "nicely" is what
>YOU did in a post you made three days ago. Since it was a message
>about a post made SIX days ago, and the poster hasn't given any sign
>that they meant for this to be a post for all, I think it's pretty
>obvious they intend it for a select FEW, like their e-mail buddies.
>Apparently, from your smug tone, that means you too. Notice how people
>who have what they want sometimes forget what its like not to have it
>and take on this patronizing attitude?
All is not as obvious as you think, young Jedi. I did ask nicely and
received what I had asked for, in a safe and secure manner. I was not
trying to be smug or patronizing, only helpful in a way that would not
compromise the safety and security of the poster. I simply suggested
that you ask nicely AND provide a secure email address. If those terms
aren't acceptible to you, then you need to drop the subject.
>
>If a post is not intended for everyone, then it is not sharing, it is
>"trading secrets time", which is not what the fort was founded on.
>Haven't enumerable people been busted because they were on the e-mail
>lists of even the most well-known posters? They want to trade one
>security risk for another...and I don't even know who this poster is.
>I don't see any other post by him, ever. You want to encourage an
>environment where gullible people will e-mail anyone who posts an
>encrypted message?
>
>Ask nicely, ONCE. When the nice request is ignored, at a bare minimum,
>the TRUTH is in order. If the TRUTH isn't nice, that's not my fault.
>
>This is nice as the situation calls for:
>
>Posters, please don't post here with passwords if you don't also post
>the passwords in a text-only post or at the very least a strong clue.
>You are ruining the fort. Demanding that people exchange e-mails with
>you (there is no such thing as truly secure e-mail when you don't KNOW
>the person you're sending to) is exactly how some people have lost
>their FREEDOM and in some cases their LIVES. This isn't necessary and
>it isn't "NICE".
And now, for the real truth. The truth is posters rule - meaning
simply that whatever steps a poster feels he or she has to take to
ensure his or her security is the rule of the day. These are very
trying times for those of us who come here. No one is DEMANDING
anything of you. If you are too untrusting to obtain a secure email
account then that is YOUR choice. But please, don't be a snot about
it.
Good day,
Chad (NP-b24)
"Well, can't he just beam up?"
"This is *reality* Greg."
>
>What's On 2011-03-10 03:18:10 -0800, Chad (NP-b24) said:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:42:26 -0800, Trevor Myner <tmyner@sessions.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-03-07 04:33:46 -0800, Chad (NP-b24) said:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:48:22 -0500, Doc NP-f31 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 17:23:13 -0600, mk <mk@mykingdom> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> has anyone found the pass for these??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thnx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mk
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep
>>>>
>>>> Well, I must be a dolt - I'm stumped.
>>>>
>>>> Mayhap a hint? :-)
>>>>
>>>> Chad (NP-b24)
>>>>
>>>> "Well, can't he just beam up?"
>>>> "This is *reality* Greg."
>>>
>>> You're not adolt. This isn't for the Fort, it's only for the few "in
>>> the know". I think there are four of them. Otherwise, SOME kind of
>>> hint would have been given. It's just another nail in the coffin of
>>> sharing the fort was based on. Or maybe the metaphor is better to say,
>>> yet another nail being yanked out of the sharing supports, presumably
>>> because they want it to collapse.
>>
>> Or, perhaps all you need to do is ask - nicely - and someone would
>> give you the pw. If you don't have a secure means of receiving emails,
>> such as a hushmail account, you'll want to get one first.
>>
>> Have a nice day.
>>
>> Chad (NP-b24)
>>
>> "Well, can't he just beam up?"
>> "This is *reality* Greg."
|
|