On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 04:27:22PM -0400, Vin McLellan wrote: > Thor Lancelot quoted that, and erupted with sanctimonious umbrage: > > >>I think it's important that we know, when flaws in commercial > >>cryptographic products are being discussed, what the interests of the > >>parties to the discussion are. So, I'll ask again, as I did last time: > >>when you post here, both in this instance and in past instances, is it > >>at your own behest, or that of RSA? > > This is puerile. One moderator is not enough? Now you want to set > yourself up as the Inquisition to vet for ideological purity? No one > at RSA (or EMC, now RSA's parent firm) even knows about this > discussion, you ninny. Who would care?
[And a couple of hundred more lines -- but no actual direct answer to the question!] I'll try again: yes, you've identified yourself as a consultant to RSA. When you have posted here, both in this most recent thread and in other threads, in particular the SecurID 800 thread, has it been at your own behest, or that of RSA? In other words, when you post here defending RSA products against criticism, often with very emphatic language and in a way that belittles the person making the criticism rather than engaging with the actual technical critique, can we assume that it is not the case that RSA asked you to do so? Or is it, in fact, sometimes the case that RSA asks you to post about their products here, and thus we should read your words as being RSA's words? I don't think it's an unreasonable question, and I ask it one more time because, despite all the vitriol you directed at me (including the rather odd choice to refer to me by my middle name rather than in a more normal way) you did not, in fact, answer it. Thor --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]