On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:40:23 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in
message :

I made one throwaway comment/observation

I think next time you should do exactly that: throw it away :-)

Or use a smiley, if it is posted with ironic intent.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:11:43 +0100 someone who may be Clive Coleman
wrote this:-

I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Could you explain this a bit more please? I can't find a reference to
PGP keys in the act you cite.

As Roland said, it is more general.

The Home Office came up with a way of oppressing people, called RIP
and pushed it through the Westminster rogues gallery. If some bod
decides to impose a gaging order then a victim of this "law" cannot
tell their lover, religious advisor or anyone else that their
communications are being read by some official. However, it is
possible to revoke the key and this is (supposedly) not telling
one's lover, religious advisor and so on what is happening.

Therefore it is elementary to state that one will always explain a
revoked key to anyone who asks, unless the UK government is
preventing one from doing so with RIP.

As Roland said, this particular bit of RIP has yet to be turned on.
If the Home Office have any sense it never will be and they will let
it curl up before it is exterminated by a law that regulates
investigatory powers (something RIP singularly fails to do).

I doubt if my pointing out the Home Office's stupidity has had any
influence on them not turning on this part of RIP, which they were
very keen on at the time. However, it cannot have done any harm.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In message , Ian Smith
writes
On Sun, Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

Nick Cooper wrote:

You see, this is the problem. I made one throwaway comment/
observation and then had to elaborate or defend myself from a bunch of
over-sensitive and trigger-happy cyclists who leapt spectacularly to
the wrong conclusion about what I actually said,

ITYM "leapt to the conclusion I meant what I actually said".

No. Let's consider what I actually said in my first post

I was commenting on what you said on a particular occasion. An
occasion that you subsequently repeatedly denied occurred. That you
said something slightly differnet on other occasions doesn't alter the
fact that you said what you did in fact say, and what you subsequently
denied saying.

You _did_ say cyclists were as bad as various motor vehicles drivers.

Operative word "some" missing twice there.

"just as many" was what you actually said, I believe. The word 'some'
did not feature in teh statement I recal.

No, I've said I did _not_ mean more than I said, and that I did _not_
say what Guy and various others have repeatedly either implied or
directly suggested, i.e. that I was making "excuses" or offering
"justification" for the behaviour of bad drivers.

I haven't claimed you did. I said you did say something you
subsequently claimed not to have said. That this is fact is a matter
of public record. I'm not sure why you keep denying you said it -
even when furnished with the message-id and quote, you bizarrely
claimed you didn't say what you said.

regards, Ian SMith
So do I perceive someone with no life other than a computer?
--
Clive.

In message , "Just zis Guy,
you know?" writes

I would make the observation, though, that a bus driver
disgregarding their training and behaving in a dangerous manner is no
less irrational than a cyclist disregarding all common sense and
nehaving in a dangerous manner.
O.K. This argument has gone far enough, and to be honest it's all
about point scoring and no facts are allowed to intervene. If a
cyclist has to brake hard at any obstruction be it traffic lights, road
works what ever he is prepared and it's his own fault if he's not. A
bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70
other persons who are not expecting sudden braking, especially whilst on
their feet walking for the door. If you are a cyclist with half a
brain then you would know why I would hit you rather that injure my load
who may be children or O.A.P.s. Give it a seconds thought, or more
accurately take a PCV test then come back and argue your case if you
think you still have one.
--
Clive.

In message , at 22:00:38 on
Mon, 25 Oct 2004, David Hansen
remarked:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:11:43 +0100 someone who may be Clive Coleman
wrote this:-

I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Could you explain this a bit more please? I can't find a reference to
PGP keys in the act you cite.

As Roland said, it is more general.

The Home Office came up with a way of oppressing people, called RIP
and pushed it through the Westminster rogues gallery. If some bod
decides to impose a gaging order then a victim of this "law" cannot
tell their lover, religious advisor or anyone else that their
communications are being read by some official.

I fear you are conflating the powers to intercept communications, and
that to demand a key if they turn out to be encrypted.

In the former case, if your communications are being read, you won't
normally know, but if you find out there's no ban on telling the world.

However, if (when put in force) you are required to reveal a key that
might allow encryption of intercepted (or seized) keys, you can be
prosecuted for tipping off your friends.

However, it is possible to revoke the key and this is (supposedly) not
telling one's lover, religious advisor and so on what is happening.

This is a long-proposed work around, but until the Code of Practice for
that part of the Act appears, it's a little rash to assume it will work
as advertised.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at
06:50:02 on Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Roland Perry
remarked:
However, if (when put in force) you are required to reveal a key that
might allow encryption of intercepted (or seized) keys,

cough decryption of intercepted (or seized) material

you can be prosecuted for tipping off your friends.

--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:30:23 +0100, Clive Coleman
wrote:

A bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70
other persons who are not expecting sudden braking, especially whilst on
their feet walking for the door. If you are a cyclist with half a
brain then you would know why I would hit you rather that injure my load
who may be children or O.A.P.s.

Bus driver is utilitarianist shock!

Colin

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:47:51 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:40:40 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:17:33 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

I was commenting on what you said on a particular occasion. An
occasion that you subsequently repeatedly denied occurred.

Tell me, Ian, can you now - hand-on-heart - steadfastly stick by every
single thing you have ever said on Usenet? Have you never given an
answer only to realise later that it wasn't complete, or you'd
overlooked some detail, and so it gave a completely different
impression to to the one you intended?

Of the occasions where I have said something that turns out not to be
true, both in real life and on usenet, I am not aware of a single one
where I have repeatedly denied saying what I actually did say. If you
believe otherwise, I am happy to re-examine any particular case you
have in mind.

You will note that I have not made any comment here on whether or not
cyslists are as bad as motorists - the factual accuracy or otherwise
of your statement is not what interests me in this case. My
observations are purely limited to your repeated denial that you said
what you did. As such, teh accuracy or otherwise of everything I have
ever said is not only irrelevant, but also not even a comparable or
reciprocal case.

You are just talking total crap. I made _one_ denial in error of
something I'd said previously, and corrected myself the following day.
I could ask you to specifically identify these supposed "repeated
denials" you're referring to, but it's clear from the fact that you
haven't already that you either can't or won't. In fact, the only
thing I have "repeatedly denied" is that anything I have said about
bad cyclists was as an "excuse" for the behaviour of bad motorists
(which, aof course, was the totality of the statement I was
insufficiently clear in denying on 22/10). It's fairly clear that
you're only prepared to believe what you want to believe, so as far as
I'm concerned you can **** off..
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:41:32 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

You started this subthread by advancing the bad
behaviour of cyclists as some kind of defence or excuse for the bad
behaviour of bus drivers.

yawn No I didn't. Why should I? Stop doggedly sticking to you own
misassumption.

So your question which started this subthread was a non-sequitur was
it? Quite how raising the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely
lawless works as a non-sequitur when it fails as a justification fro
dangerous behaviour by bus drivers escapes me just at the moment.

What I actually said:

Alternatively, who can I complain to about all the ****s on bikes who
think that red lights - particularly those at pedestrian crossing -
somehow don't count for them? Especially annoying are the ones who
think they're entitled to shout abuse at the pedestrians they have to
swerve round them because they're already half way across the road.
Funny, that, isn't it? Pedestrians having the temerity to cross a
road when the lights are in their favour, just because to
knobend-in-lycra is too impatient to obey the red and wait a few
seconds.

Now, where is, "the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely lawless," or
any, "justification fro dangerous behaviour by bus drivers"?

Face it Guy, from the outset you leapt to conclusions that aren't
supported by what I actually wrote. If you want to keep ranting on
about your fantasies, then you can do it on your own.

[remainder of overly-defensive and prejudiced drivel snipped]
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

In uk.rec.cycling David Hansen wrote:

: The Home Office came up with a way of oppressing people, called RIP
: and pushed it through the Westminster rogues gallery.

Actually with my professional hat on for a bit, I like large chunks
of RIPA. The stuff about having to tell your users that all your IT staff
sit around all day drinking tea and reading their email (to pharaphrase
is good and sensible.

The trouble with RIPA is that the bad stuff (the gagging orders etc) is
very, very bad.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
"Blogs are neither necessary nor sufficient for evil to triumph.
They're just what we call an enabling technology" - Danny O'Brien