Re: What potential

On Fri, 04 May 2007 16:41:07 -0400, Gogarty <Gogarty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>In article <1gcl331e7hb9jmnkgtn0ghulbclret7219@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
nymnuts@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
>says...
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 01 May 2007 11:21:07 -0400, Gogarty <Gogarty@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <f9ed33ttn3b0obunnarvioqc6c01jt2i1d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
nymnuts@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
>>>says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'll pass on pgp, even if it means not being able 
>>>>to find the imaginary 'secret group'. <bfg>
>>>>
>>>Me too.
>>
>>Hello, Mr. Gogarty!  
>>
>>Nice to see you're still about!
>>I do hope you've been finding it 
>>worthwhile to visit here.
>>
>>Feel free to join in!
>>
>>--
>>nymnuts©
>
>Thank you. It's always nice to feel welcomed.
>
>As for PGP, it's not the complexity (which I understand is far less than
it 
>used to be) but that it does not square with my number one tenet: TRUST
NO 
>ONE!

I see no reason why PGP should involve trust.
You're conversing with me now, and it is not 
necessary for you to trust me to do so.  If 
we were to use PGP, the only difference would 
be that only you and I would be able to read 
our messages to each other.  Everything would 
be the same as now, only private.

Yet, this is exactly why I have such disdain 
for PGP in Usenet.  It goes against the 'free 
and open forum' concept upon which Usenet was 
once based.  Trust (or lack thereof) does not 
even factor into the PGP equation.

--
nymnuts©