In message <e4hl4lt7rvbjstvgffqbs19cdrmrdo2srm@4ax.com>, at 21:56:42 on Sun, 5
Jul 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:01:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <kgd84l1cc5fmdeqa8b6fuk0k4g3q5mohpp@4ax.com>, at 22:35:14 on >>>Tue, 30 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>remarked:
There are two places that the data can be. One is in the mind of a person >>>>who looks at the customer's ID. The other is in the "mind" of an electronic >>>>system which "looks at" the customer's ID.
The former is not amenable to remote attack. The latter is.
But your risk analysis of that attack is decades out of date.
I haven't made any risk analysis of it. I've merely stated that the risk >>exists. A fact which is completely irrefutable. You can argue that the risk >>is lower than it used to be, and that's a fair comment - particlarly if >>backed up by statistics. But you can't argue that there is zero risk.
If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be helpful before wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so low as to be nothing to worry about.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:E7x6qlBiEgTqFA4u@perry.uk...
If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be helpful
before wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so low as
to be nothing to worry about.
If you knew more about Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type,
( something which might be helpful before making your point )
you'd probably be better qualified to judge as to whether
of not he would be likely to worry about any specific threat;
no matter how low it was. Probably.
On 2026-07-08, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:E7x6qlBiEgTqFA4u@perry.uk...
If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be helpful
before wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so low as
to be nothing to worry about.
If you knew more about Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type,
( something which might be helpful before making your point )
you'd probably be better qualified to judge as to whether
of not he would be likely to worry about any specific threat;
no matter how low it was. Probably.
I didn't reject it, but I did see it, and my first thought was "that
sounds a bit off", before I read it more carefully and realised what
you were saying. But I got called away before actually pressing 'go'
on it.
The whole thread makes me feel like posting abusive messages about
Roland frankly.
On 2026-07-08, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:E7x6qlBiEgTqFA4u@perry.uk...
If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be helpful
before wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so low as
to be nothing to worry about.
If you knew more about Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type,
( something which might be helpful before making your point )
you'd probably be better qualified to judge as to whether
of not he would be likely to worry about any specific threat;
no matter how low it was. Probably.
I didn't reject it, but I did see it, and my first thought was "that
sounds a bit off", before I read it more carefully and realised what
you were saying. But I got called away before actually pressing 'go'
on it.
The whole thread makes me feel like posting abusive messages about
Roland frankly.
The whole thread makes me feel like posting abusive messages about
Roland frankly.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:E7x6qlBiEgTqFA4u@perry.uk...
In message <e4hl4lt7rvbjstvgffqbs19cdrmrdo2srm@4ax.com>, at 21:56:42 on Sun, 5
Jul 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:01:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>
In message <kgd84l1cc5fmdeqa8b6fuk0k4g3q5mohpp@4ax.com>, at 22:35:14 on >>>> Tue, 30 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
There are two places that the data can be. One is in the mind of a person >>>>> who looks at the customer's ID. The other is in the "mind" of an electronic
system which "looks at" the customer's ID.
The former is not amenable to remote attack. The latter is.
But your risk analysis of that attack is decades out of date.
I haven't made any risk analysis of it. I've merely stated that the risk >>> exists. A fact which is completely irrefutable. You can argue that the risk >>> is lower than it used to be, and that's a fair comment - particlarly if
backed up by statistics. But you can't argue that there is zero risk.
If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be helpful before >> wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so low as to be nothing to
worry about.
If you knew more about Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type,
( something which might be helpful before making your point )
you'd probably be better qualified to judge as to whether
of not he would be likely to worry about any specific threat;
no matter how low it was. Probably.
On 08/07/2026 17:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:E7x6qlBiEgTqFA4u@perry.uk...
In message <e4hl4lt7rvbjstvgffqbs19cdrmrdo2srm@4ax.com>, at 21:56:42 on Sun, 5
Jul 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:01:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <kgd84l1cc5fmdeqa8b6fuk0k4g3q5mohpp@4ax.com>, at 22:35:14 on >>>>> Tue, 30 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
There are two places that the data can be. One is in the mind of a person
who looks at the customer's ID. The other is in the "mind" of an electronic
system which "looks at" the customer's ID.
The former is not amenable to remote attack. The latter is.
But your risk analysis of that attack is decades out of date.
I haven't made any risk analysis of it. I've merely stated that the risk >>>> exists. A fact which is completely irrefutable. You can argue that the risk
is lower than it used to be, and that's a fair comment - particlarly if >>>> backed up by statistics. But you can't argue that there is zero risk.
If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be
helpful before wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so
low as to be nothing to worry about.
If you knew more about Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type,
( something which might be helpful before making your point )
you'd probably be better qualified to judge as to whether
of not he would be likely to worry about any specific threat;
no matter how low it was. Probably.
Oh, was I wrong to reject it?
I thought "Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type" was a snide
remark about Mr Goodge, whether it was that he was neurodivergent or
maybe eccentric. Has Mr Goodge ever published detqils of his
personality type for the public to see?
On 08/07/2026 17:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:E7x6qlBiEgTqFA4u@perry.uk...
In message <e4hl4lt7rvbjstvgffqbs19cdrmrdo2srm@4ax.com>, at 21:56:42 on Sun, 5
Jul 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:01:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <kgd84l1cc5fmdeqa8b6fuk0k4g3q5mohpp@4ax.com>, at 22:35:14 on >>>>> Tue, 30 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
There are two places that the data can be. One is in the mind of a person
who looks at the customer's ID. The other is in the "mind" of an electronic
system which "looks at" the customer's ID.
The former is not amenable to remote attack. The latter is.
But your risk analysis of that attack is decades out of date.
I haven't made any risk analysis of it. I've merely stated that the risk >>>> exists. A fact which is completely irrefutable. You can argue that the risk
is lower than it used to be, and that's a fair comment - particlarly if >>>> backed up by statistics. But you can't argue that there is zero risk.
If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be helpful before
wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so low as to be nothing to
worry about.
If you knew more about Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type,
( something which might be helpful before making your point )
you'd probably be better qualified to judge as to whether
of not he would be likely to worry about any specific threat;
no matter how low it was. Probably.
Oh, was I wrong to reject it?
I thought "Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type" was a snide
remark about Mr Goodge, whether it was that he was neurodivergent or
maybe eccentric. Has Mr Goodge ever published detqils of his
personality type for the public to see?
On 08/07/2026 17:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:E7x6qlBiEgTqFA4u@perry.uk...
In message <e4hl4lt7rvbjstvgffqbs19cdrmrdo2srm@4ax.com>, at 21:56:42 on Sun,
5
Jul 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:01:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>
In message <kgd84l1cc5fmdeqa8b6fuk0k4g3q5mohpp@4ax.com>, at 22:35:14 on >>>>> Tue, 30 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
There are two places that the data can be. One is in the mind of a person
who looks at the customer's ID. The other is in the "mind" of an
electronic
system which "looks at" the customer's ID.
The former is not amenable to remote attack. The latter is.
But your risk analysis of that attack is decades out of date.
I haven't made any risk analysis of it. I've merely stated that the risk >>>> exists. A fact which is completely irrefutable. You can argue that the risk
is lower than it used to be, and that's a fair comment - particlarly if >>>> backed up by statistics. But you can't argue that there is zero risk.
If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be helpful before
wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so low as to be nothing >>> to
worry about.
If you knew more about Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type,
( something which might be helpful before making your point )
you'd probably be better qualified to judge as to whether
of not he would be likely to worry about any specific threat;
no matter how low it was. Probably.
Oh, was I wrong to reject it?
about Mr Goodge, whether it was that he was neurodivergent or maybe eccentric.
Has Mr Goodge ever published detqils of his personality type for the public to
see?
On 9 Jul 2026 at 22:04:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 08/07/2026 17:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:E7x6qlBiEgTqFA4u@perry.uk...
In message <e4hl4lt7rvbjstvgffqbs19cdrmrdo2srm@4ax.com>, at 21:56:42 on >>>> Sun, 5
Jul 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:01:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be helpful
In message <kgd84l1cc5fmdeqa8b6fuk0k4g3q5mohpp@4ax.com>, at 22:35:14 on >>>>>> Tue, 30 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
There are two places that the data can be. One is in the mind of a >>>>>>> person
who looks at the customer's ID. The other is in the "mind" of an >>>>>>> electronic
system which "looks at" the customer's ID.
The former is not amenable to remote attack. The latter is.
But your risk analysis of that attack is decades out of date.
I haven't made any risk analysis of it. I've merely stated that the risk >>>>> exists. A fact which is completely irrefutable. You can argue that the >>>>> risk
is lower than it used to be, and that's a fair comment - particlarly if >>>>> backed up by statistics. But you can't argue that there is zero risk. >>>>
before
wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so low as to be nothing >>>> to
worry about.
If you knew more about Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type,
( something which might be helpful before making your point )
you'd probably be better qualified to judge as to whether
of not he would be likely to worry about any specific threat;
no matter how low it was. Probably.
Oh, was I wrong to reject it?
I thought "Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type" was a snide
remark about Mr Goodge, whether it was that he was neurodivergent or
maybe eccentric. Has Mr Goodge ever published detqils of his
personality type for the public to see?
I think you were wrong. He was not even defining Mr Goodge's personality type,
it was merely a speculation that people's approach to risk might depend on personality. By all means reject it as not new though!
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:nbagmhF8dndU1@mid.individual.net...
ht "Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type" was a snide remark
about Mr Goodge, whether it was that he was neurodivergent or maybe
eccentric. Has Mr Goodge ever published detqils of his personality
type for the public to see?
I don't make snide remarks. You're clearly projecting.
As with your fantasies concerning Mr Goodge's real personality
As clearly, being considered eccentric or neurodivergent would be of
real concern to someone such as yourself; for reasons which can
only be guessed at.
On 2026-07-10, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:nbagmhF8dndU1@mid.individual.net...
ht "Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type" was a snide remark
about Mr Goodge, whether it was that he was neurodivergent or maybe
eccentric. Has Mr Goodge ever published detqils of his personality
type for the public to see?
I don't make snide remarks. You're clearly projecting.
As with your fantasies concerning Mr Goodge's real personality
As clearly, being considered eccentric or neurodivergent would be of
real concern to someone such as yourself; for reasons which can
only be guessed at.
Claims not to make snide remarks...
...immediately makes a snide remark.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:3553296679.1450bf4c@uninhabited.net...
On 9 Jul 2026 at 22:04:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 08/07/2026 17:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:E7x6qlBiEgTqFA4u@perry.uk...
In message <e4hl4lt7rvbjstvgffqbs19cdrmrdo2srm@4ax.com>, at 21:56:42 on >>>>> Sun, 5
Jul 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:01:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote: >>>>>>If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be helpful >>>>> before
In message <kgd84l1cc5fmdeqa8b6fuk0k4g3q5mohpp@4ax.com>, at 22:35:14 on >>>>>>> Tue, 30 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>>>> remarked:
There are two places that the data can be. One is in the mind of a >>>>>>>> person
who looks at the customer's ID. The other is in the "mind" of an >>>>>>>> electronic
system which "looks at" the customer's ID.
The former is not amenable to remote attack. The latter is.
But your risk analysis of that attack is decades out of date.
I haven't made any risk analysis of it. I've merely stated that the risk >>>>>> exists. A fact which is completely irrefutable. You can argue that the >>>>>> risk
is lower than it used to be, and that's a fair comment - particlarly if >>>>>> backed up by statistics. But you can't argue that there is zero risk. >>>>>
wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so low as to be nothing
to
worry about.
If you knew more about Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type,
( something which might be helpful before making your point )
you'd probably be better qualified to judge as to whether
of not he would be likely to worry about any specific threat;
no matter how low it was. Probably.
Oh, was I wrong to reject it?
I thought "Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type" was a snide
remark about Mr Goodge, whether it was that he was neurodivergent or
maybe eccentric. Has Mr Goodge ever published detqils of his
personality type for the public to see?
I think you were wrong. He was not even defining Mr Goodge's personality type,
it was merely a speculation that people's approach to risk might depend on >> personality. By all means reject it as not new though!
"Not new" as applicable to moderation policy, means "not new" in the
context of the thread in question; in already having been mentioned a
number of times. Which clearly doesn't apply in this instance
Rather than "not new" as having doubtless regularly featured in
conversations between yourself, and your fellow intellectuals
concerning the experiments conducted by Rottenstreich and Hseeee
in 2001 using the almost ubiquitous American College students
as subjects. To say nothing of the 1985 study concerning
Risk Aversion in Rats (Rattus Norvegicus); although in that
case not concerning itself with individual difference.
HTH (Hope this Helps)
bb
On 10 Jul 2026 at 08:16:12 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3553296679.1450bf4c@uninhabited.net...
On 9 Jul 2026 at 22:04:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 08/07/2026 17:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:E7x6qlBiEgTqFA4u@perry.uk...
In message <e4hl4lt7rvbjstvgffqbs19cdrmrdo2srm@4ax.com>, at 21:56:42 on >>>>>> Sun, 5
Jul 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:01:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be helpful >>>>>> before
In message <kgd84l1cc5fmdeqa8b6fuk0k4g3q5mohpp@4ax.com>, at 22:35:14 on
Tue, 30 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>>>>> remarked:
There are two places that the data can be. One is in the mind of a >>>>>>>>> person
who looks at the customer's ID. The other is in the "mind" of an >>>>>>>>> electronic
system which "looks at" the customer's ID.
The former is not amenable to remote attack. The latter is.
But your risk analysis of that attack is decades out of date.
I haven't made any risk analysis of it. I've merely stated that the risk
exists. A fact which is completely irrefutable. You can argue that the >>>>>>> risk
is lower than it used to be, and that's a fair comment - particlarly if >>>>>>> backed up by statistics. But you can't argue that there is zero risk. >>>>>>
wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so low as to be >>>>>> nothing
to
worry about.
If you knew more about Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type, >>>>> ( something which might be helpful before making your point )
you'd probably be better qualified to judge as to whether
of not he would be likely to worry about any specific threat;
no matter how low it was. Probably.
Oh, was I wrong to reject it?
I thought "Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type" was a snide
remark about Mr Goodge, whether it was that he was neurodivergent or
maybe eccentric. Has Mr Goodge ever published detqils of his
personality type for the public to see?
I think you were wrong. He was not even defining Mr Goodge's personality >>> type,
it was merely a speculation that people's approach to risk might depend on >>> personality. By all means reject it as not new though!
"Not new" as applicable to moderation policy, means "not new" in the
context of the thread in question; in already having been mentioned a
number of times. Which clearly doesn't apply in this instance
Rather than "not new" as having doubtless regularly featured in
conversations between yourself, and your fellow intellectuals
concerning the experiments conducted by Rottenstreich and Hseeee
in 2001 using the almost ubiquitous American College students
as subjects. To say nothing of the 1985 study concerning
Risk Aversion in Rats (Rattus Norvegicus); although in that
case not concerning itself with individual difference.
HTH (Hope this Helps)
bb
The specific epithet should not be capitalised, even if derived from a proper noun. HTH
--
Roger Hayter
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:E7x6qlBiEgTqFA4u@perry.uk...
In message <e4hl4lt7rvbjstvgffqbs19cdrmrdo2srm@4ax.com>, at 21:56:42
on Sun, 5
Jul 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:01:16 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <kgd84l1cc5fmdeqa8b6fuk0k4g3q5mohpp@4ax.com>, at 22:35:14 on >>>>Tue, 30 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>remarked:
There are two places that the data can be. One is in the mind of a person >>>>>who looks at the customer's ID. The other is in the "mind" of an electronic
system which "looks at" the customer's ID.
The former is not amenable to remote attack. The latter is.
But your risk analysis of that attack is decades out of date.
I haven't made any risk analysis of it. I've merely stated that the risk >>>exists. A fact which is completely irrefutable. You can argue that the risk >>>is lower than it used to be, and that's a fair comment - particlarly if >>>backed up by statistics. But you can't argue that there is zero risk.
If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be helpful before >> wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so low as to be nothing to
worry about.
If you knew more about Mr Goodge,
and his specific personality type, ( something which might be helpful
before making your point ) you'd probably be better qualified to judge
as to whether of not he would be likely to worry about any specific
threat; no matter how low it was. Probably.
In message <112lupq$3peq0$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:44:40 on Wed, 8 Jul
2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
If you knew more about Mr Goodge,
I think I know as much as I need to, we've been corresponding for
perhaps 20yrs.
and his specific personality type, ( something which might be helpful >>before making your point ) you'd probably be better qualified to judge
as to whether of not he would be likely to worry about any specific >>threat; no matter how low it was. Probably.
He has a characteristic style, which convinces many people he's always right, but sadly he's often wrong.
2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
If you knew more about Mr Goodge,
I think I know as much as I need to, we've been corresponding for perhaps 20yrs.
He has a characteristic style, which convinces many people he's always right, but sadly he's often wrong.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message >news:bnN9tOAKB8VqFArl@perry.uk...
2026, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
If you knew more about Mr Goodge,
I think I know as much as I need to, we've been corresponding for perhaps
20yrs.
He has a characteristic style, which convinces many people he's always right,
but sadly he's often wrong.
On many such occasions I think you'll find he wasn't wrong at all.
But like many others, no doubt based on his 20 yrs experience
he very sensibly decided to simply walk away. Rather than
continue to bang his head against a brick wall.
Either that, or be blocked for harrassment..
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 26:37:09 |
| Calls: | 1,105 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 279,959 |