Subj : Ed Snowden's email provider shutting down to fight USG pressure
To   : Lee Lofaso
From : Damon A. Getsman
Date : Sun Aug 11 2013 12:29:00

  Re: Ed Snowden's email provider shutting down to fight USG pressure
  By: Lee Lofaso to Damon A. Getsman on Sat Aug 10 2013 23:26:41

 > Aren't we all an "idjit"?  Especially when compared to The One?

	Certainly we must be.  However, when I first read this message, I 
did not parse the fact that you were speaking about Obama.  I probably 
should have known that you were not referencing 'The All' as spoken about 
in The Kybalion.

 > Each and every morning, The One gets a briefing from his National
 > Security Advisor.  This briefing is always classified "Top Secret" -
 > except when The One decides to share it with others (usually members
 > of Congress when they start asking questions about his sex life).
 > But that is the official version, given out by the White House.

	I suppose.

 > What really happens is The One receives information instananeously
 > on his Blackberry.  Now this is no ordinary Blackberry ...

	Yeah that frigging Blackberry is a bit of a conundrum.  I guess 
the Whitehouse must have its own internal cellular network or it runs 
solely on their Redhat hardened servers via standard Wifi.  My guess is 
that the last option is the right one; I wouldn't think that even Obama 
would trust his data to the cell networks.  I mean yeah, he wouldn't give 
a shit that the NSA is forwarding all of his information to the shadow 
government, but the lowly cellular service providers who oversee things up 
until they're requested to hand it over by law enforcement and the like?  
Probably not.

 > I did note at the top I was addressing the rest of the message as if
 > I was addressing it to the author of the article on the web page.  My
 > apologies for any misunderstandings.

	Did you really?  I didn't see that, I guess; I can't look back to 
verify right now because I'm on a limited quota of bytes over 4g.

 > Only on rare occasions, if the article was suitable for that form.
 > It is not intended to be seen or viewed as a personal attack, but
 > rather a form of address.  When using that form, I note at the top
 > of my message that I am addressing the author of the article, not
 > the individual who posted the article in a message forum.

	Why not take a quick second to change the recipient of the message 
to 'All'?

 > In this kind of forum, a didactic form of debate is normally used,
 > due to its ease of use given the medium.  This is not the optimal
 > form of debate, as there are better formats that can be used.  In
 > most cases, perceived personal insults are not insults at all, but
 > rather misunderstandings.

	Sometimes, yeah, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say 'most 
cases'.  Lots of people, especially on this network, seem to respond to 
the most innocuous content with lit petrol squirtguns blazing.

 > Flame wars are a different matter, in which both parties are
 > deliberately throwing insults at each other, and sometimes entire
 > tribes.  Gosh, I miss the Flame echo ...

	I missed those, when I was like 17.  People never know where to 
draw the lines, though.  I've been stalked and had personal information 
dug up by idiots carrying on in that way before.  Not so sure I'd like to 
engage in flaming for the sake of flaming any more.  My testosterone has 
started declining, no doubt, in my advanced years.
	Of course, and as can be evidenced by my reply to your reply in 
this thread that I started, I do occasionally succumb to the urges to 
sharpen my claws on someone's digital rhetoric.


-The opinions expressed are not necessarily an advocation of any of the
aforementioned ideologies, concepts, or actions.  We still have the freedom of
speech, for now, and I enjoy using it in a satirical or ficticious manner to
amuse myself-

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a
revolutionary act." --  George Orwell

--- SBBSecho 2.14-OpenBSD
 * Origin: telnet://bismaninfo.hopto.org:8023/ (1:282/1057)

.