1996-12-22 - Re: Slaughter

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: Carl Johnson <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Message Hash: cf7c9febece3a6be51c7d83d9132c1548fe2bc8f482c0fb8ebc127efb908cbb1
Message ID: <32BD7A17.547@gte.net>
Reply To: <aVL0yD28w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-22 18:13:56 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 10:13:56 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 10:13:56 -0800 (PST)
To: Carl Johnson <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Slaughter
In-Reply-To: <aVL0yD28w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <32BD7A17.547@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Carl Johnson wrote:
> Dale Thorn wrote:

> Thanks, I love the quote but can't find it or it's source.  Perhaps I
> can put it all together in bits and pieces.

As long as we're getting closer on that one, I thought I'd add my own
twist on another famous (but obnoxious) quote:

The standard version:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
The courage to change the things I can;
And the wisdom to know the difference.  (quote not necessarily exact).

My version:
God grant me the wisdom to know the difference between right and wrong;
The courage to support those who I feel are doing the right things,
 and to oppose those who are doing the wrong things;
And the serenity to do so as peacefully as possible.

BTW, when I bought my first Sinead O'Connor album (Lion & Cobra), I
thought it was the best album ever recorded (apologies to James Brown),
but then she released another album with the standard version quote
(as above) leading off the first song, and I nearly barfed.

> > There is a difference between principle and fact.  You have the
> > principles exactly correct, but as to facts, you have to be eternally
> > vigilant, i.e., don't get too comfortable with PGP et al.

> Thanks for the advice.  PGP serves me very well for most of my correspondences,
> but I add a little 'je ne sais quoi' to it for things I consider to be of more
> personal import.  It's probably something that experienced crytptographers would
> laugh at, but just because I'm not a professional security-alarm designer doesn't
> mean I'm going to leave my housekey under the front door mat.

Everybody with computer experience has different levels of security for
different applications/files etc.; I'm only suggesting that it would be
nice when people discuss applications of PGP (as opposed to mere technical
aspects of PGP), that they would include comments as to the expected level
of security.  I get the impression from posters that some of them consider
their encryption under PGP to be absolutely unreadable by NSA et al.
Which BTW may be possible under some circumstances, but which circum-
stances probably don't apply in most cases.