| anon@anon.com 2007-07-30, 1:13 am |
| Anonymous Sender <anonymous@remailer.metacolo.com> says:
>anon@anon.com wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>You're confused. Nobody said it proved anything of the sort.
You're confused. You missed the point of the discussion. We know
what the point is, because we started this discussion. We made the
claim that you idiots cannot refute. The issue in this thread is
that one cannot conclude anything about a posting's authorship in
the absence of pgp trash.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>You're mistaken, and endless repetition won't change that. Once
>again, typing really slow this time... the inability of a forger to
>produce a valid digital signature, proved the document a forgery.
You're mistaken. Endlessly repeating something not relevant to this
thread or the issues of this thread does not change this thread or
the issues of this thread. Start your own thread. The issue in
this thread, which we started, is that one cannot conclude anything
about a posting's authorship in the absence of pgp trash.
>You'll of course amuse us with another round of "if moonbeams and
>unicorns were real" stupidity. Go ahead, you know you have to.
><sigh>
If you want to talk about moonbeams and unicorns, and make silly
<sighs>, start your own thread. The issue in this thread, which we
started, is that one cannot conclude anything about a posting's
authorship in the absence of pgp trash.
Since you can't refute our statement, we can understand why you want
to change the issue. But if you are going to change the issue,
start your own thread.
IOW: bugger off.
G'nite Wanda,
cordially, as always,
rm
|