No such Client wrote: > With due respect Mr Lebbing, my initial post - > > http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2012-August/045291.html > > was in response to Mr. Hansen´s post > > http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2012-August/045269.html > > which (from my perspective) was exceedingly rude, and arrogant. I > wondered why the same company that castigates me for being rude, or > insulting allows one with a ¨real name¨ to disparage another member. Not > a double standard at all eh? So yes, I was intentionally rude with Mr. > Hansen , (and only him afaik) as he was quite offensive to Mr. Segment..
Odd that only you seemed to find Rob's remarks offensive, and exceedingly at
that. But then again, only you stooped to argumentum ad hominem. Peter Segment
was not under attack, only the ideas he presented were being challenged. It's
great for one to hypothesize a new idea, but with no data for support and by
disagreeing with a couple decades of peer-reviewed research, then yes it's not
going to be taken very seriously especially by those with academic and/or
professional experience in the field.
Trying to discount a research paper because of its age (when later papers
reach substantially the same conclusions) is akin to want to toss legal
precedent because the case was decided 100 years ago.
Your use of a pseudonym does not devalue your words. Your use of personal
attack does. Anonymity used in that fashion reminds me of SlashDot's
"Anonymous Coward" moniker. You were rude to Rob. I do not know how many
others on the list also found your behavior rude.
> (Full Disclosure: I enjoyed it. Sometimes people learn with a taste of
> their own medicine.. ) So it is understandable if Mr. Hansen does not
> hold me in the highest regard. However that is between us. Others here
> should promote mutual respect of all members, and not selectively attack
> new members, while allowing the ¨old guard¨ to speak as they like to
> other members with impunity.
Your glee says even more about you than just the words you used to attack Rob.
BTW, saying in your attack that Robert J. Hansen and Robert P. Hanssen were
the same name also adds to your level of credibility. I guess you were also
unaware that Rob has pointed this similar name thing out several times both
here and on other crypto lists. Rude as it was, it was also entertaining. I
found the example of "sending 30 Israeli academics to Iran" to be quite
entertaining in its naïveté. I imagine details like lawfully securing visas or
passing Customs were forgotten in haste to insult.
This forum has always provided mutual respect to posters, but ideas are ideas,
they are not people. The "Old Guard," as you describe us, tend to be rather
patient with new members often patiently re-answering frequently asked
questions and pointing to other sources of information. I've seen much worse
behavior on some other lists.
I doubt Rob gives you or your words much thought or regard. He and I are both
experienced of much more vociferously phrased attacks from academic realms
than his corrections on why people do not avail themselves of crypto. But
typically in those cases we've experienced, the attacker is buying the second
pitcher of beer later in the day (depends on whether he has tenure). We are
taught to attack and challenge _ideas_ especially new or unproven ones. It's
how weaknesses or fallacies in a theory are exposed. It's the way peer-review
works. It's the way science works.
--
John P. Clizbe Inet: John (a) Gingerbear DAWT net
SKS/Enigmail/PGP-EKP or: John ( @ ) Enigmail DAWT net
FSF Assoc #995 / FSFE Fellow #1797 hkp://keyserver.gingerbear.net or
mailto:pgp-public-k...@gingerbear.net?subject=HELP
Q:"Just how do the residents of Haiku, Hawai'i hold conversations?"
A:"An odd melody / island voices on the winds / surplus of vowels"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
