Sniping as a Way of Living with Failure – The Petulant Politics of Losers.

[Austin Obyrne]

There should be no ‘losers’ really in crypto research in my view unless you dig your heels in and refuse to acknowledge change when it is both inevitable and beneficial to all of the crypto world to which you purport to belong but don’t support. But it is hard to be honest with oneself and be an honest loser when you are psychologically perceived by yourself to be a low achiever – these people create themselves.

Unfortunately, there are and always will be people whose very psyche is negative and introspective, they will demand that successful innovation by loner researchers who don’t belong by nature to the herd must nonetheless be sanctioned by their herd whose solidarity they rely on and which they flaunt to each other at every opportunity.

If this sanction is not applied for and submitted meekly to the elders (the biblical scribes and pharisees of cryptoland) one must expect to be ostracised and even expunged with disgrace from the herd (which they probably loathe and despise anyway).

The veracity of mathematical proof is usually quite unknown to them and it would be ignored anyway even if it was.

Eventually they become addicted to being a loser and forget how to applaud others. They cannot countenance the light of honest success in any way like some kind of metaphorical Draculas and are driven to jeer-leading others success with ridicule instead of complementary clapping.

It eventually spills over as a chronic character defect that they must live with and cannot hide.

If the cap fits you must wear it.

(don’t bother trying to turn this back on me – I’m so far ahead of the posse I am off their radar for a long time now)

Recommended 40 minute read: “Jonathan Livingston Seagull”

Cheers - adacrypt

[Austin Obyrne]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:34:07 AM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> There should be no ‘losers’ really in crypto research in my view unless you dig your heels in and refuse to acknowledge change when it is both inevitable and beneficial to all of the crypto world to which you purport to belong but don’t support. But it is hard to be honest with oneself and be an honest loser when you are psychologically perceived by yourself to be a low achiever – these people create themselves. Unfortunately, there are and always will be people whose very psyche is negative and introspective, they will demand that successful innovation by loner researchers who don’t belong by nature to the herd must nonetheless be sanctioned by their herd whose solidarity they rely on and which they flaunt to each other at every opportunity. If this sanction is not applied for and submitted meekly to the elders (the biblical scribes and pharisees of cryptoland) one must expect to be ostracised and even expunged with disgrace from the herd (which they probably loathe and despise anyway). The veracity of mathematical proof is usually quite unknown to them and it would be ignored anyway even if it was. Eventually they become addicted to being a loser and forget how to applaud others. They cannot countenance the light of honest success in any way like some kind of metaphorical Draculas and are driven to jeer-leading others success with ridicule instead of complementary clapping. It eventually spills over as a chronic character defect that they must live with and cannot hide. If the cap fits you must wear it. (don’t bother trying to turn this back on me – I’m so far ahead of the posse I am off their radar for a long time now) Recommended 40 minute read: “Jonathan Livingston Seagull” Cheers - adacrypt

I'm waiting for him to break cover but he won't because he knows the cap fits and reacting to me will confirm it.

- adacrypt

[mrvm...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:53:14 PM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> I'm waiting for him to break cover but he won't because he knows the cap fits and reacting to me will confirm it.

You are posting complete nonsense and you know it. Post again to confirm this, or stop posting altogether to irrevocably refute this allegation.

--

[Austin Obyrne]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:17:29 PM UTC+1, mrvm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:53:14 PM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote: > I'm waiting for him to break cover but he won't because he knows the cap fits and reacting to me will confirm it. You are posting complete nonsense and you know it. Post again to confirm this, or stop posting altogether to irrevocably refute this allegation. --

Your ‘catch-22’ attempt at silencing me is more than he deserves – everybody who can read knows that he has been making aggressive and derogatory statements about me in many posts both past and present for a long time. There is nothing for me to refute.

- adacrypt

[David Eather]

How stupid can you be? If you had read JLS you would see that by hard work
and over a period of his entire life, JSL mastered the existing art of
flying and THEN extended that and excelled. You have been told that you
need to do that same thing every day you post here but you refuse because
you want the reward but you can't or won't put in the work.

Have you seen the TV programs 'So you think you can dance' or 'American
Idol'. Have you seen the pathetic losers who come in and assume they are
great dancers or singers but they have never put in a serious effort to
train? You're just like that. Watch them and see.

End.

[Austin Obyrne]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 1:48:18 AM UTC+1, David Eather wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:34:07 +1000, Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > There should be no ‘losers’ really in crypto research in my view unless > you dig your heels in and refuse to acknowledge change when it is both > inevitable and beneficial to all of the crypto world to which you > purport to belong but don’t support. But it is hard to be honest with > oneself and be an honest loser when you are psychologically perceived by > yourself to be a low achiever – these people create themselves. > > Unfortunately, there are and always will be people whose very psyche is > negative and introspective, they will demand that successful innovation > by loner researchers who don’t belong by nature to the herd must > nonetheless be sanctioned by their herd whose solidarity they rely on > and which they flaunt to each other at every opportunity. > > If this sanction is not applied for and submitted meekly to the elders > (the biblical scribes and pharisees of cryptoland) one must expect to be > ostracised and even expunged with disgrace from the herd (which they > probably loathe and despise anyway). > > The veracity of mathematical proof is usually quite unknown to them and > it would be ignored anyway even if it was. > > Eventually they become addicted to being a loser and forget how to > applaud others. They cannot countenance the light of honest success in > any way like some kind of metaphorical Draculas and are driven to > jeer-leading others success with ridicule instead of complementary > clapping. > > It eventually spills over as a chronic character defect that they must > live with and cannot hide. > > If the cap fits you must wear it. > > (don’t bother trying to turn this back on me – I’m so far ahead of the > posse I am off their radar for a long time now) > > Recommended 40 minute read: “Jonathan Livingston Seagull” > How stupid can you be? If you had read JLS you would see that by hard work and over a period of his entire life, JSL mastered the existing art of flying and THEN extended that and excelled. You have been told that you need to do that same thing every day you post here but you refuse because you want the reward but you can't or won't put in the work. Have you seen the TV programs 'So you think you can dance' or 'American Idol'. Have you seen the pathetic losers who come in and assume they are great dancers or singers but they have never put in a serious effort to train? You're just like that. Watch them and see. End.

The skirmish at the Food Court.

It is still not clear whether this is real or some allegorical model that his strange mindset dwells on. Imagine going public with an embarrassing confrontation with yobos like that when he should be keeping his mouth shut - that's if it is real or some mad excursion of his sick imagination.

Reminds me of the anecdote about Charles Babbage and the street musicians that he publicly abhorred and of course they went and played outside his window all night long for good measure – no other connection of course with the great man like say intellectual parity (perish the thought).

He has free treatment available to him on the NHS (National Health Service) here in the UK so there is no need to feel sorry for him.

I have offered to help him understand the application of plane geometry to cryptography when his health returns even to the extent of offering to go over the entire sourcecode of my ciphers line-by-line but he is not able to assimilate it and he needs an extensive foundation course in applied vector arithmetic and possibly some introduction to programming in the ADA programming language.

(My recently posted innuendos don’t apply to anybody else so you can stand down on that one now.)

- have a nice day but keep clear of unfriendly food court visitors.

- adacrypt

[Austin Obyrne]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 1:48:18 AM UTC+1, David Eather wrote:

> On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:34:07 +1000, Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > There should be no ‘losers’ really in crypto research in my view unless > you dig your heels in and refuse to acknowledge change when it is both > inevitable and beneficial to all of the crypto world to which you > purport to belong but don’t support. But it is hard to be honest with > oneself and be an honest loser when you are psychologically perceived by > yourself to be a low achiever – these people create themselves. > > Unfortunately, there are and always will be people whose very psyche is > negative and introspective, they will demand that successful innovation > by loner researchers who don’t belong by nature to the herd must > nonetheless be sanctioned by their herd whose solidarity they rely on > and which they flaunt to each other at every opportunity. > > If this sanction is not applied for and submitted meekly to the elders > (the biblical scribes and pharisees of cryptoland) one must expect to be > ostracised and even expunged with disgrace from the herd (which they > probably loathe and despise anyway). > > The veracity of mathematical proof is usually quite unknown to them and > it would be ignored anyway even if it was. > > Eventually they become addicted to being a loser and forget how to > applaud others. They cannot countenance the light of honest success in > any way like some kind of metaphorical Draculas and are driven to > jeer-leading others success with ridicule instead of complementary > clapping. > > It eventually spills over as a chronic character defect that they must > live with and cannot hide. > > If the cap fits you must wear it. > > (don’t bother trying to turn this back on me – I’m so far ahead of the > posse I am off their radar for a long time now) > > Recommended 40 minute read: “Jonathan Livingston Seagull” > How stupid can you be? If you had read JLS you would see that by hard work and over a period of his entire life, JSL mastered the existing art of flying and THEN extended that and excelled. You have been told that you need to do that same thing every day you post here but you refuse because you want the reward but you can't or won't put in the work. Have you seen the TV programs 'So you think you can dance' or 'American Idol'. Have you seen the pathetic losers who come in and assume they are great dancers or singers but they have never put in a serious effort to train? You're just like that. Watch them and see. End.

I’m trying hard to rationalise your posts because I think there is some huge misunderstanding.

Your admonitions to me are so outrageously simplistic that I can only think you are trying hard to wind me up and insult me with your childishness.

But just in case you are serious please let me set out my stall so that you can see what I am selling.

I am not interested in learning anybody else’s cryptography which I perceive to be virtually defunct even now and will eventually go on the scrap heap soon when sufficient computer power is common place (rumour has it that the US government is already in that happy state).

I don’t believe in cryptographic 'principles' that must be ingested as a precursor to studying cryptographic research as you so strongly imply.

I am not a cryptographer. I am a cryptography researcher. I have a piece of mathematics that I can see is the basis of some very powerful cryptography and I am promoting that alone.

It’s no use saying to me there is a pecking order you must observe or you are jumping some establishment queue. These are just herd rules that I love flouting anyway.

I swear by mathematical truth and mathematical proof alone and I will always point you to the sheer pragmatism that this rightfully evokes in mathematicians, engineers and scientists and is the birthright of my claims in cryptography.

I do not require anybody’s permission to be right in my proven claims and I know I am right no matter how hard anybody tries to denigrate me on a personal basis.

This is mindless petulance.

Get it straight - I am teaching cryptography not learning from some one else.

Let me know if I can be of further help.

- adacrypt

[Austin Obyrne]

On Monday, May 13, 2013 1:48:18 AM UTC+1, David Eather wrote:

> On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:34:07 +1000, Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > There should be no ‘losers’ really in crypto research in my view unless > you dig your heels in and refuse to acknowledge change when it is both > inevitable and beneficial to all of the crypto world to which you > purport to belong but don’t support. But it is hard to be honest with > oneself and be an honest loser when you are psychologically perceived by > yourself to be a low achiever – these people create themselves. > > Unfortunately, there are and always will be people whose very psyche is > negative and introspective, they will demand that successful innovation > by loner researchers who don’t belong by nature to the herd must > nonetheless be sanctioned by their herd whose solidarity they rely on > and which they flaunt to each other at every opportunity. > > If this sanction is not applied for and submitted meekly to the elders > (the biblical scribes and pharisees of cryptoland) one must expect to be > ostracised and even expunged with disgrace from the herd (which they > probably loathe and despise anyway). > > The veracity of mathematical proof is usually quite unknown to them and > it would be ignored anyway even if it was. > > Eventually they become addicted to being a loser and forget how to > applaud others. They cannot countenance the light of honest success in > any way like some kind of metaphorical Draculas and are driven to > jeer-leading others success with ridicule instead of complementary > clapping. > > It eventually spills over as a chronic character defect that they must > live with and cannot hide. > > If the cap fits you must wear it. > > (don’t bother trying to turn this back on me – I’m so far ahead of the > posse I am off their radar for a long time now) > > Recommended 40 minute read: “Jonathan Livingston Seagull” > How stupid can you be? If you had read JLS you would see that by hard work and over a period of his entire life, JSL mastered the existing art of flying and THEN extended that and excelled. You have been told that you need to do that same thing every day you post here but you refuse because you want the reward but you can't or won't put in the work. Have you seen the TV programs 'So you think you can dance' or 'American Idol'. Have you seen the pathetic losers who come in and assume they are great dancers or singers but they have never put in a serious effort to train? You're just like that. Watch them and see. End.

My own words earlier.

< I don’t believe in cryptographic 'principles' that must be ingested as a precursor to studying cryptographic research as you so strongly imply.

Unlike most topics in engineering, science and mathematics, cryptography in my view has no preparatory spadework that must be done as a conditional down-payment and instead one can go right up to the frontiers of cryptography straight away and pitch in with your intuitive understanding of secrecy of communications (innately present from childhood) added to your particular expertise, whatever that might be in engineering science or mathematics but not exclusively one of those three either.

One borrows from the three disciplines quoted above say and intellectually superimposes exploratory ideas that are deliberately set out as conjecture, claim and proof in the best tradition on the transformation methodology being used firstly but with the added twist in the tail that transformations of plaintext into ciphertext must be selectively reversible by only two exponents of the claim i.e. the Alice and Bob entities of a secure communications loop.

Anybody can do this with impunity, the challenge is in being able to project some topic of another discipline familiar to the person doing it as the raw creation model of an algorithm in cryptography that they will then refine and hone to smooth perfection as an unambiguous cipher.

There is no freemasonry about anything – like membership of the establishment - ciphers are there to be shot at but anybody may try without prior conditions being demanded like say foundation courses in particular topics of mathematics(like group theory, theory of information or even modular arithmetic) - i.e. big brother stuff that the academic establishment would love to impose.

No way – not needed mate!

Summarising.

There is no salient preparation that must be in situ beforehand in cryptography apart from a knowledge of some discipline and an affinity for modelling.

Cryptography is therefore an industry that goes out – not up - and the starting point is the same for everyone, there is no qualifying ground work to be in place nor is a place in the establishment a condition for recognising a successful outcome cipher.

The criterion for acceptance into mainstream cryptography is set out by the hands-on crypto industry alone - they are the ones that will eventually use any prospective cipher.

- adacrypt

[Austin Obyrne]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:16:50 AM UTC+1, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 1:48:18 AM UTC+1, David Eather wrote: > On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:34:07 +1000, Austin Obyrne <austin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > There should be no ‘losers’ really in crypto research in my view unless > you dig your heels in and refuse to acknowledge change when it is both > inevitable and beneficial to all of the crypto world to which you > purport to belong but don’t support. But it is hard to be honest with > oneself and be an honest loser when you are psychologically perceived by > yourself to be a low achiever – these people create themselves. > > Unfortunately, there are and always will be people whose very psyche is > negative and introspective, they will demand that successful innovation > by loner researchers who don’t belong by nature to the herd must > nonetheless be sanctioned by their herd whose solidarity they rely on > and which they flaunt to each other at every opportunity. > > If this sanction is not applied for and submitted meekly to the elders > (the biblical scribes and pharisees of cryptoland) one must expect to be > ostracised and even expunged with disgrace from the herd (which they > probably loathe and despise anyway). > > The veracity of mathematical proof is usually quite unknown to them and > it would be ignored anyway even if it was. > > Eventually they become addicted to being a loser and forget how to > applaud others. They cannot countenance the light of honest success in > any way like some kind of metaphorical Draculas and are driven to > jeer-leading others success with ridicule instead of complementary > clapping. > > It eventually spills over as a chronic character defect that they must > live with and cannot hide. > > If the cap fits you must wear it. > > (don’t bother trying to turn this back on me – I’m so far ahead of the > posse I am off their radar for a long time now) > > Recommended 40 minute read: “Jonathan Livingston Seagull” > How stupid can you be? If you had read JLS you would see that by hard work and over a period of his entire life, JSL mastered the existing art of flying and THEN extended that and excelled. You have been told that you need to do that same thing every day you post here but you refuse because you want the reward but you can't or won't put in the work. Have you seen the TV programs 'So you think you can dance' or 'American Idol'. Have you seen the pathetic losers who come in and assume they are great dancers or singers but they have never put in a serious effort to train? You're just like that. Watch them and see. End. My own words earlier. < I don’t believe in cryptographic 'principles' that must be ingested as a precursor to studying cryptographic research as you so strongly imply. Unlike most topics in engineering, science and mathematics, cryptography in my view has no preparatory spadework that must be done as a conditional down-payment and instead one can go right up to the frontiers of cryptography straight away and pitch in with your intuitive understanding of secrecy of communications (innately present from childhood) added to your particular expertise, whatever that might be in engineering science or mathematics but not exclusively one of those three either. One borrows from the three disciplines quoted above say and intellectually superimposes exploratory ideas that are deliberately set out as conjecture, claim and proof in the best tradition on the transformation methodology being used firstly but with the added twist in the tail that transformations of plaintext into ciphertext must be selectively reversible by only two exponents of the claim i.e. the Alice and Bob entities of a secure communications loop. Anybody can do this with impunity, the challenge is in being able to project some topic of another discipline familiar to the person doing it as the raw creation model of an algorithm in cryptography that they will then refine and hone to smooth perfection as an unambiguous cipher. There is no freemasonry about anything – like membership of the establishment - ciphers are there to be shot at but anybody may try without prior conditions being demanded like say foundation courses in particular topics of mathematics(like group theory, theory of information or even modular arithmetic) - i.e. big brother stuff that the academic establishment would love to impose. No way – not needed mate! Summarising. There is no salient preparation that must be in situ beforehand in cryptography apart from a knowledge of some discipline and an affinity for modelling. Cryptography is therefore an industry that goes out – not up - and the starting point is the same for everyone, there is no qualifying ground work to be in place nor is a place in the establishment a condition for recognising a successful outcome cipher. The criterion for acceptance into mainstream cryptography is set out by the hands-on crypto industry alone - they are the ones that will eventually use any prospective cipher. - adacrypt

Foundation courses per se are not needed – let me labour this once more.

There are no general principles of cryptology required as a preamble to learning research cryptography.

The only ‘principle’ and it is an abiding one, is that the ciphertext is not invertible by any means by anybody outside of the legitimate entities in a secure communications loop.

Don’t let anybody sell you the idea that there are general foundation courses (post school days) to be studied as a sine qua non to attempting cipher design. This is just not true.

Clearly the topic that may eventually lead to strong cryptography will be well known already to the person designing a particular cipher and a foundation course is obviously not required then.

The only time one may need to take any foundation course ever is if they are learning somebody else’s cipher design that is based on some topic in a discipline that is strange to them.

Such courses may have been a ‘nice little earner’ in academia in the past but they are not required as a prerequisite to research any more.

- adacrypt