Re: A twist on OTP for an outstandingly secure channel?



Jean-François Michaud wrote:
tomstde...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Jean-François Michaud wrote:
Hahah, I can't beleive this guy. You attack ME and you're giving ME
lessons about who's picking a fight with who and who should be civil
and rational?!? What are you, 10?
Drop the persecution complex. maybe nobody agrees with you because
you're wrong and lack the comp.sci / information theory background to
actually make cogent arguments.

At least you're not so condescending anymore, maybe you realized that
you're talking to people?

My background 'IS' computer science. I'm very familiar with computers
all the way down to the hardware, this is not where the problem is
originating from.

Don't take it personal that we know more than you. Just learn.

I've learned all my life and it's not about to stop because a bunch of
clowns on sci.crypt feel that it's necessary to spit on whomever they
deem a lesser person. It's actually pretty pathetic that someone would
feel the need to adopt such an attitude. It denotes a sense of
insecurity, or of 'feeling-out-of-placeness'.

You obviously (probably purposefully) ignored that I'm perfectly civil
with whomever deserves it, notably, anybody who tries to have a normal
dialog instead of talking through their ass. I'm actually able to
discuss with rossum and John E. Hadstate because they don't have
preconceived assfull communication notions such as you do. They
Agreed that they're more likely to "play along"

What you call 'playing along' is called 'having a normal conversation
with someone' to most normally enclined person, something that you are
starting to do just now as opposed to bashing.

but it's clear from the
opening barrage that they had a clear message they wanted to share with
you and you've repeatedly ignored it.

I haven't ignored anything they said, quite the contrary.

You don't have to swear at people to be offensive. Ignoring their
advice and treated everything they say as irrelevant is just as rude
and offensive.

I'll dutifully ignore you then unless I clearly see that you want to
discuss.

I never asked YOU for your thoughts, and you simply made very obvious
the fact that I never will.
You did by posting in sci.crypt.

And you feel obligated to bash instead of discussing? You are obviously
enjoying the bash more than you are having a normal discussion.

If you want to talk with Hadstate
then email him.

I don't have to email him, I can simply post on here. This is what
discussion forums are for, discussing. Because they are less personal
shouldn't invite the thought that one should be less courteous towards
others.

Otherwise, the group is free to respond.

Withing the limits of normal human conversation.

Why is it
so hard to accept that you're just plain wrong and should refrain from
this course of logic?

I've mentioned many times that I'm leaving place for my understanding
being off track but I must say that nobody has clearly explained why it
is off track, if it is. I'm not getting the clear impression that the
full extent of what I said was comprehended in full by the posters in
this thread. Most of what I get is bashing.

If the plaintext is the message and you OTP encrypt it there is no
getting better. END OF STORY.

There are situtations where the message is the message and no OTP will
save that. In that case, chaffing and other TRAFFIC ANALYSIS remedies
are called for. But you're not really improving on the OTP then
because you're solving a different problem than it was meant to solve.

I suggest you read the thread more thoroughly and come back to discuss
NORMALLY.

Jean-Francois Michaud

Ari,
You are the rudest person on sci.crypt. Most annoying is that you post an idea asking people what they think and when they disagree or tell you a weakness to drop into verbal abuse.
.