Phorm, mitm, and https

nemo_outis

Ertugrul =?UTF-8?B?U8O2eWxlbWV6?= <> wrote in news:fpu314$9u4$02
$:

> Unfortunately this is very inaccurate. The mathematics are deniable,
> because there are no security proofs. There is strong evidence towards
> good security, but nothing is proven here. So currently, we can only
> assume security, not take it for granted.

Yes, but as Thoreau reminds us, "Some circumstantial evidence is very
strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."

Regards,

No One

Ari wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:52:34 -0500, ugh wrote:
>
>> 128k SSL is crackable, with considerable time and effort.
>
> I should say lol

Instead of that, why don't you tell us where you claim you work as the
employer? That way you can clear up this 'misunderstanding', by proving
yourself as being truthful when you say you are an *employer*, and you
can prove me wrong when I say you're not. And, you can accomplish both
of these objectives at the same time. There's no reason why you
shouldn't take this opportunity.

Don't you see? By saying you are somebody that you're not, it's like
you're taking on another identity. And that makes you no better than us
anonymous posters that you obviously have a vendetta against.

That makes you a true hypocrite.

You can run, but you cannot hide.

Ari

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:29:09 -0500, No One wrote:

> Instead of that, why don't you tell us where you claim you work as the
> employer? That way you can clear up this 'misunderstanding', by proving
> yourself as being truthful when you say you are an *employer*, and you
> can prove me wrong when I say you're not. And, you can accomplish both
> of these objectives at the same time. There's no reason why you
> shouldn't take this opportunity.
>
> Don't you see? By saying you are somebody that you're not, it's like
> you're taking on another identity. And that makes you no better than us
> anonymous posters that you obviously have a vendetta against.
>
> That makes you a true hypocrite.
>
> You can run, but you cannot hide.

Yes, but as Thoreau reminds us, "Some circumstantial evidence is very
strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."

Regards,

--
An Explanation Of The Need To Be "Anonymous"

No One

Ari wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:29:09 -0500, No One wrote:
>
>> Instead of that, why don't you tell us where you claim you work as the
>> employer? That way you can clear up this 'misunderstanding', by proving
>> yourself as being truthful when you say you are an *employer*, and you
>> can prove me wrong when I say you're not. And, you can accomplish both
>> of these objectives at the same time. There's no reason why you
>> shouldn't take this opportunity.
>>
>> Don't you see? By saying you are somebody that you're not, it's like
>> you're taking on another identity. And that makes you no better than us
>> anonymous posters that you obviously have a vendetta against.
>>
>> That makes you a true hypocrite.
>>
>> You can run, but you cannot hide.
>
> Yes, but as Thoreau reminds us, "Some circumstantial evidence is very
> strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
>
> Regards,
>

And now you're plagiarizing nemo_outis.

You're like a panhandling derelict bum without any dignity or
self-respect whatsoever.

But, on the flip-side, now I know that I've been right in my estimation
concerning you. You just handed me the confirmation.

Something else I know, that maybe you don't: you will only get worse.

Anonymous

Ari wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:29:09 -0500, No One wrote:
>
> > Instead of that, why don't you tell us where you claim you work as the
> > employer? That way you can clear up this 'misunderstanding', by proving
> > yourself as being truthful when you say you are an *employer*, and you
> > can prove me wrong when I say you're not. And, you can accomplish both
> > of these objectives at the same time. There's no reason why you
> > shouldn't take this opportunity.
> >
> > Don't you see? By saying you are somebody that you're not, it's like
> > you're taking on another identity. And that makes you no better than us
> > anonymous posters that you obviously have a vendetta against.
> >
> > That makes you a true hypocrite.
> >
> > You can run, but you cannot hide.
>
> Yes, but as Thoreau reminds us, "Some circumstantial evidence is very
> strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."


I'm sorry, what was the name of the company where you're an "employer"
again? I certainly must have missed it, as you would never post
unsubstantiated claims to Usenet. Would you?

Ari

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:29:09 -0500, No One wrote:

> Ari wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:52:34 -0500, ugh wrote:
>>
>>> 128k SSL is crackable, with considerable time and effort.
>>
>> I should say lol
>
> Instead of that, why don't you tell us where you claim you work as the
> employer? That way you can clear up this 'misunderstanding', by proving
> yourself as being truthful when you say you are an *employer*, and you
> can prove me wrong when I say you're not. And, you can accomplish both
> of these objectives at the same time. There's no reason why you
> shouldn't take this opportunity.
>
> Don't you see? By saying you are somebody that you're not, it's like
> you're taking on another identity. And that makes you no better than us
> anonymous posters that you obviously have a vendetta against.
>
> That makes you a true hypocrite.
>
> You can run, but you cannot hide.

An old fish once said: "Anonymouse morons speak with forked brains, be thee
not afraid of one who shakes in the shadows jacking off their pee-pee.
--
An Explanation Of The Need To Be "Anonymous"

Ari

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:24:16 -0500, No One wrote:

>>> Don't you see? By saying you are somebody that you're not, it's like
>>> you're taking on another identity. And that makes you no better than us
>>> anonymous posters that you obviously have a vendetta against.
>>>
>>> That makes you a true hypocrite.
>>>
>>> You can run, but you cannot hide.
>>
>> Yes, but as Thoreau reminds us, "Some circumstantial evidence is very
>> strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>
> And now you're plagiarizing nemo_outis.

Sherlock Holmes once said: "Reading is not brilliance although those who
are faceless may believe themselves so"
--
An Explanation Of The Need To Be "Anonymous"

Ari

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:08:38 -0500 (EST), Anonymous wrote:

>>> Don't you see? By saying you are somebody that you're not, it's like
>>> you're taking on another identity. And that makes you no better than us
>>> anonymous posters that you obviously have a vendetta against.
>>>
>>> That makes you a true hypocrite.
>>>
>>> You can run, but you cannot hide.
>>
>> Yes, but as Thoreau reminds us, "Some circumstantial evidence is very
>> strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
>
> I'm sorry, what was the name of the company where you're an "employer"
> again? I certainly must have missed it, as you would never post
> unsubstantiated claims to Usenet. Would you?

As an old sage once told me, "Answer not what is archived especially to the
Nameless Ones."
--
An Explanation Of The Need To Be "Anonymous"

No One

Ari wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:29:09 -0500, No One wrote:
>
>> Ari wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:52:34 -0500, ugh wrote:
>>>
>>>> 128k SSL is crackable, with considerable time and effort.
>>> I should say lol
>> Instead of that, why don't you tell us where you claim you work as the
>> employer? That way you can clear up this 'misunderstanding', by proving
>> yourself as being truthful when you say you are an *employer*, and you
>> can prove me wrong when I say you're not. And, you can accomplish both
>> of these objectives at the same time. There's no reason why you
>> shouldn't take this opportunity.
>>
>> Don't you see? By saying you are somebody that you're not, it's like
>> you're taking on another identity. And that makes you no better than us
>> anonymous posters that you obviously have a vendetta against.
>>
>> That makes you a true hypocrite.
>>
>> You can run, but you cannot hide.
>
> An old fish once said: "Anonymouse morons speak with forked brains, be thee
> not afraid of one who shakes in the shadows jacking off their pee-pee.

It's reassuring to see that you had to return and respond to my post a
second time.

That tells me you must have been struggling with the torment it was
causing you.

If you just tell us the *name* of the company where you are an employer,
as you claim, then all of this mental anguish will suddenly disappear.

You don't like being anonymous, do you? Then take this opportunity to
become non-anonymous. Otherwise, you will remain anonymous forever.
Everybody will know that you're not who you say you are.

No One

Ari wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:24:16 -0500, No One wrote:
>
>>>> Don't you see? By saying you are somebody that you're not, it's like
>>>> you're taking on another identity. And that makes you no better than us
>>>> anonymous posters that you obviously have a vendetta against.
>>>>
>>>> That makes you a true hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>> You can run, but you cannot hide.
>>> Yes, but as Thoreau reminds us, "Some circumstantial evidence is very
>>> strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>> And now you're plagiarizing nemo_outis.
>
> Sherlock Holmes once said: "Reading is not brilliance although those who
> are faceless may believe themselves so"

Maybe you'd care to name for me the Sherlock Holmes volume that
quotation is from. I thought I had read them all, but I don't recall
ever seeing that in any of them.

And I wonder why you left out a majority of my post.

I guess it must have been the part that disturbs you the most:

"You're like a panhandling derelict bum without any dignity or
self-respect whatsoever.

But, on the flip-side, now I know that I've been right in my estimation
concerning you.
You just handed me the confirmation.

Something else I know, that maybe you don't: you will only get worse."

Yes, I see why that would be a definite cause of perturbation to you.

In fact, I can see you getting worse even now, O Faceless One.

Q.E.D.