Message from discussion Headline: Petraeus Resigns
Received: by 10.180.104.38 with SMTP id gb6mr2030739wib.4.1352676586549;
Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:29:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com>
Subject: Re: Headline: Petraeus Resigns
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:29:43 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <loidneiU7MeMaADNnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:29:46 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d1591dda43300d93872f86a6dcf85b87";
logging-data="20467"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19g/CPd8dPPSWwoUqJdQ6IlllpG/TpZ2aI="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Firefox/16.0 SeaMonkey/2.13.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:43:45 -0600, Les Cargill
> <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
>> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
>>> Les Cargill wrote:
>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>>> Headline: Petraeus Resigns
>>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>> Turns out G.I. Joe was not anatomically correct.
>>> Why would even care to know?
>> I don't know. I didn't start the thread. Read it again until it's
>> funny; there is something deeply humorous about Petraeus being forced
>> to resign on grounds of virility.
> It might be 'humorous' if that were the reason but the reasons were
> because of exceedingly bad judgment and compromised security, both of
> which extend far beyond just the one man.
I suppose there is actual training materials and reams of regulation
on exactly what can transpire before it's a security breach?
> To wit, how are you going to explain to the rank and file that taking
> up with whatever bimbo who bats an eye is a potential security
> compromise if you wink and nod at the man with more security
> information than anyone else exercising similar 'judgment'?
We are already neck deep in swampy non-concepts...
>> The Sovs always made up an "illness" story. We use... something
> That because the Soviets had to "make up" something since, in their
> system, the 'privileged' were allowed whatever they wanted.
No, because absolutely nothing was ever issued as information
that *wasn't* made up, really :)