Posted by Andrew DeFaria on 09/06/05 03:43

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>> I'm not clueless - just not paranoid like you.
>
> ROFLMAO!

Glad I could entertain you...

>>> By "outside world" I mean areas which do not normally have access to
>>> that data. It may be inside the company or outside the company.
>>
>> How convenient that you have chosen to redefine common usage of such
>> terms so as to cover your ass...
>
> ROFLMAO! No - you just assumed a POV which wasn't accurate.

Not really. The outside and inside worlds are pretty well known. It was
you who abused the term not I.

>>> ROFLMAO! First of all, I am not a "security person".
>>
>> I know - you're just pretending to be!
>
> Nope. I have never claimed to be a security person.

Whew! That's a relief!

> Unlike you who has claimed to be a programmer.

Ah but I am.

>>> I am a developer with almost 40 years of programming experience. I
>>> have worked on every sized system from PC's to mainframes, in almost
>>> 20 different languages.
>>>
>>> I started learning about data protection in my 13 years with IBM.
>>> I've continued during the last 15 years as a consultant.
>>
>> Toot, toot. BFD.
>
> Better than you!

Not really dude.

>>> Do you think every requirement was specified in the original post?
>>> And do you think the customer understands everything about potential
>>> exposures?
>>
>> I would think, especially after haggling about this for this long,
>> that if there were any requirements then they would be been stated by
>> now, or at least an acknowledgment that there were at least some
>> security requirements. But they still haven't said anything, and that
>> says a lot - all in my favor.
>
> Nope. This has all been about your stupidity and naivette.

Doesn't matter. Fact remains. There are no stated security requirements.
To assume otherwise is your foolishness.

> <rest of the drivel snipped>

Because you had no come back for the truth.

> Sorry, I just realized I'm arguing with a complete idiot.

You're just realizing this? What does that say about you?

> And I don't lower myself to that level.

You have already and have continued to do so. If you really thought I
was just an idiot you would have quit long ago. IOW you've already
lowered yourself to what you perceive my level is. Truth be told you
have not managed to elevate your level high enough yet so you're
quitting. Great!

> Have fun.

I always do.

> And I hope you don't cost your customers TOO much.

I don't cost my customers anything. It's strictly a value for value deal.

> I don't give a damn about you.

Sure you do. Otherwise you would not have responded as often as you did.

> However, I REALLY hate to see people be snowed by the likes of you.

I'm snowing nobody. I'm simply telling it like it is, based on what it
is. It was you who was spreading FUD not me - remember?

> OTOH, I've made some of my best money picking up the pieces idiots
> just like you have left.

I'd venture to guess that you've never made a penny off of anything I've
ever did.
--
And when I get real, real bored, I like to drive downtown and get a
great parking spot, then sit in my car and count how many people ask me
if I'm leaving.

[Back to original message]