info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What the Secret Service could learn from drunken sailors
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Dennis
Apr 27, 2012, 7:34:25 PM4/27/12
to
Too good to leave out here! Anyone care to comment?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-the-secret-service-could-
learn-from-drunken-sailors/2012/04/26/gIQAz0kzjT_story.html
What the Secret Service could learn from drunken sailors
By Roberto Loiederman,
Roberto Loiederman, a merchant seaman from 1966 to 1974, is a writer in
California. He co-authored “The Eagle Mutiny,” an account of the 1970
mutiny on a U.S. vessel.
What happened in Cartagena, Colombia, with the Secret Service seems
unsavory to me, but not for the reasons you might think.
I make no judgments about men spending a night with escorts. As far as
I’m concerned, those who take a holier-than-thou attitude about this are
like Inspector Renault in “Casablanca” when he says he’s “shocked,
shocked” to discover there is gambling at Rick’s Cafe .?.?. just before
someone hands him his winnings.
No, what the Secret Service agents apparently did seems unsavory because
of my own experiences.
More than 40 years ago, I was a merchant seaman. Whenever our ship would
get to port — any port — we’d hurry to an area near the docks filled with
bars and women. Valparaiso or Santos, Pusan or Saigon, Djibouti or
Cartagena — the only changes, from port to port, were the local women’s
ethnicity and language.
As a seaman, what other options do you have? You’re in a strange city for
a few days. You’re with other hardworking, hard-playing guys. And you’ve
got cash in your pocket. So you go to a bar, drink more than you should,
smile at the women buzzing around, maybe dance with one and then — for a
pre-arranged fee — take her to a hotel room.
I imagine the Secret Service agents in the scandal du jour went through
similar steps. Of course, the current situation is different from what I
remember. The women involved in the Secret Service scandal are “escorts,”
not the type of ladies who hang out with seamen, as a Colombian woman in
question made clear to the New York Times. The bar where the U.S.
personnel met these women is an upscale discotheque, not some mosquito-
ridden dive. Like us, the Secret Service men drank far too much, but it
was expensive vodka, not cheap whiskey.
There’s another major difference: One of the Secret Service agents did
something no self-respecting seaman would have done.
When I worked on ships, seamen were a superstitious lot. When there was a
bad storm, while the ship pitched and rolled, the crew, unable to eat or
sleep, would gather in the messroom and grumble. Anyone who remembers
Coleridge’s ancient mariner knows that seamen don’t blame the wind and
tides for bad weather and rough seas. Rather, they blame a fellow member
of the crew — someone who has, say, killed an albatross. During storms,
they’d mumble darkly that a crew member had “Jonah’d” the ship — done
something wicked, while ashore, that caused the seas to rise up and take
revenge.
Inevitably, someone would point out that the likely cause of the foul
weather was that one of our crew had committed the worst sin of all: not
paying a whore. All would nod gravely. In my day, seamen were convinced
that this was such a serious infraction it could threaten a ship’s
survival. More than once I saw fellow crew members, who’d come back to
the ship so drunk they couldn’t remember where they’d been, make
superhuman efforts to send money to a woman ashore in a desperate attempt
to avoid the curse of the unpaid prostitute.
I thought about this while reading about the scandal in Cartagena. It
appears that getting drunk and going back to the hotel with the women
wasn’t, in itself, what got the Secret Service personnel into trouble.
What got them busted was that someone in their group refused to pay an
escort the pre-arranged price. One of the escorts wanted $800. She said
that a Secret Service agent offered her $30. (To put that figure in
perspective, it’s more or less what seamen used to pay in Cartagena 45
years ago for all-night companionship.)
The stereotype of “spending like a drunken sailor” is true. We prided
ourselves on spending our money foolishly. Working on a ship headed to
Latin America was known as a “romance run” because it would often end up
costing us more than we made. But we didn’t care. We’d give a woman
whatever she asked for. If the requested price was steep — like, say,
$800 — we’d keep enough for the taxi back to the ship and give her
whatever we had.
I don’t want to romanticize the seedy life of merchant seamen, but if the
Secret Service personnel involved in this scandal had played by the same
rules and followed the same ethical standards as the drunken sailors I
used to work with, there would have been no confrontation, and they might
still have their jobs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-the-secret-service-could-
learn-from-drunken-sailors/2012/04/26/gIQAz0kzjT_story.html
What the Secret Service could learn from drunken sailors
By Roberto Loiederman,
Roberto Loiederman, a merchant seaman from 1966 to 1974, is a writer in
California. He co-authored “The Eagle Mutiny,” an account of the 1970
mutiny on a U.S. vessel.
What happened in Cartagena, Colombia, with the Secret Service seems
unsavory to me, but not for the reasons you might think.
I make no judgments about men spending a night with escorts. As far as
I’m concerned, those who take a holier-than-thou attitude about this are
like Inspector Renault in “Casablanca” when he says he’s “shocked,
shocked” to discover there is gambling at Rick’s Cafe .?.?. just before
someone hands him his winnings.
No, what the Secret Service agents apparently did seems unsavory because
of my own experiences.
More than 40 years ago, I was a merchant seaman. Whenever our ship would
get to port — any port — we’d hurry to an area near the docks filled with
bars and women. Valparaiso or Santos, Pusan or Saigon, Djibouti or
Cartagena — the only changes, from port to port, were the local women’s
ethnicity and language.
As a seaman, what other options do you have? You’re in a strange city for
a few days. You’re with other hardworking, hard-playing guys. And you’ve
got cash in your pocket. So you go to a bar, drink more than you should,
smile at the women buzzing around, maybe dance with one and then — for a
pre-arranged fee — take her to a hotel room.
I imagine the Secret Service agents in the scandal du jour went through
similar steps. Of course, the current situation is different from what I
remember. The women involved in the Secret Service scandal are “escorts,”
not the type of ladies who hang out with seamen, as a Colombian woman in
question made clear to the New York Times. The bar where the U.S.
personnel met these women is an upscale discotheque, not some mosquito-
ridden dive. Like us, the Secret Service men drank far too much, but it
was expensive vodka, not cheap whiskey.
There’s another major difference: One of the Secret Service agents did
something no self-respecting seaman would have done.
When I worked on ships, seamen were a superstitious lot. When there was a
bad storm, while the ship pitched and rolled, the crew, unable to eat or
sleep, would gather in the messroom and grumble. Anyone who remembers
Coleridge’s ancient mariner knows that seamen don’t blame the wind and
tides for bad weather and rough seas. Rather, they blame a fellow member
of the crew — someone who has, say, killed an albatross. During storms,
they’d mumble darkly that a crew member had “Jonah’d” the ship — done
something wicked, while ashore, that caused the seas to rise up and take
revenge.
Inevitably, someone would point out that the likely cause of the foul
weather was that one of our crew had committed the worst sin of all: not
paying a whore. All would nod gravely. In my day, seamen were convinced
that this was such a serious infraction it could threaten a ship’s
survival. More than once I saw fellow crew members, who’d come back to
the ship so drunk they couldn’t remember where they’d been, make
superhuman efforts to send money to a woman ashore in a desperate attempt
to avoid the curse of the unpaid prostitute.
I thought about this while reading about the scandal in Cartagena. It
appears that getting drunk and going back to the hotel with the women
wasn’t, in itself, what got the Secret Service personnel into trouble.
What got them busted was that someone in their group refused to pay an
escort the pre-arranged price. One of the escorts wanted $800. She said
that a Secret Service agent offered her $30. (To put that figure in
perspective, it’s more or less what seamen used to pay in Cartagena 45
years ago for all-night companionship.)
The stereotype of “spending like a drunken sailor” is true. We prided
ourselves on spending our money foolishly. Working on a ship headed to
Latin America was known as a “romance run” because it would often end up
costing us more than we made. But we didn’t care. We’d give a woman
whatever she asked for. If the requested price was steep — like, say,
$800 — we’d keep enough for the taxi back to the ship and give her
whatever we had.
I don’t want to romanticize the seedy life of merchant seamen, but if the
Secret Service personnel involved in this scandal had played by the same
rules and followed the same ethical standards as the drunken sailors I
used to work with, there would have been no confrontation, and they might
still have their jobs.
Eugene Griessel
Apr 27, 2012, 7:46:32 PM4/27/12
to
Op 27 Apr 2012 23:34:25 GMT, Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Too good to leave out here! Anyone care to comment?
There was a Count of Swoboda
who'd not paid a whore what he owed her
so with great savoir faire
she stood on a chair
and pissed in his whisky and soda.
Eugene L Griessel
Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.
wrote:
>Too good to leave out here! Anyone care to comment?
who'd not paid a whore what he owed her
so with great savoir faire
she stood on a chair
and pissed in his whisky and soda.
Eugene L Griessel
Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 28, 2012, 10:49:46 AM4/28/12
to
Dennis wrote:
>
> No, what the Secret Service agents apparently did seems unsavory because
> of my own experiences.
Son, you have failed to grasp the gravity of the episode which
>
> No, what the Secret Service agents apparently did seems unsavory because
> of my own experiences.
has nothing to do with "unsavory".
;-)
Bill
Apr 28, 2012, 10:56:17 AM4/28/12
to
In article <frCdnXzw1NPyngHS...@supernews.com>,
dr...@jameford.edu says...
Gravity?
Are you insane?
Some guys went abroad on a 'short job' and hired some whores for a
night's entertainment.
It's what men in 'macho' jobs do, and have always done.
The only shocking thing, and what got them found out, is that some
cheapskate didn't pay.
If he'd paid up you'd never have heard a word and US Secret Service men
would still be banging whores in every capital city in the world.
Do you really think the local officials didn't know, and what makes you
think anyone, except for hypocrites like yourself spouting moralising
twaddle, cared?
--
William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.
dr...@jameford.edu says...
Are you insane?
Some guys went abroad on a 'short job' and hired some whores for a
night's entertainment.
It's what men in 'macho' jobs do, and have always done.
The only shocking thing, and what got them found out, is that some
cheapskate didn't pay.
If he'd paid up you'd never have heard a word and US Secret Service men
would still be banging whores in every capital city in the world.
Do you really think the local officials didn't know, and what makes you
think anyone, except for hypocrites like yourself spouting moralising
twaddle, cared?
--
William Black
When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 28, 2012, 11:11:14 AM4/28/12
to
Bill wrote:
> In article <frCdnXzw1NPyngHS...@supernews.com>,
> dr...@jameford.edu says...
>
>>Dennis wrote:
>>
>>>No, what the Secret Service agents apparently did seems unsavory because
>>>of my own experiences.
>>
>>Son, you have failed to grasp the gravity of the episode which
>>has nothing to do with "unsavory".
>>;-)
>
>
> Gravity?
>
> Are you insane?
>
> Some guys went abroad on a 'short job' and hired some whores for a
> night's entertainment.
>
> It's what men in 'macho' jobs do, and have always done.
>
> The only shocking thing, and what got them found out, is that some
> cheapskate didn't pay.
>
> If he'd paid up you'd never have heard a word and US Secret Service men
> would still be banging whores in every capital city in the world.
>
> Do you really think the local officials didn't know, and what makes you
> think anyone, except for hypocrites like yourself spouting moralising
> twaddle, cared?
Ouch...son, you're another peabrain who can't grasp what the ruckus is
> In article <frCdnXzw1NPyngHS...@supernews.com>,
> dr...@jameford.edu says...
>
>>Dennis wrote:
>>
>>>No, what the Secret Service agents apparently did seems unsavory because
>>>of my own experiences.
>>
>>Son, you have failed to grasp the gravity of the episode which
>>has nothing to do with "unsavory".
>>;-)
>
>
> Gravity?
>
> Are you insane?
>
> Some guys went abroad on a 'short job' and hired some whores for a
> night's entertainment.
>
> It's what men in 'macho' jobs do, and have always done.
>
> The only shocking thing, and what got them found out, is that some
> cheapskate didn't pay.
>
> If he'd paid up you'd never have heard a word and US Secret Service men
> would still be banging whores in every capital city in the world.
>
> Do you really think the local officials didn't know, and what makes you
> think anyone, except for hypocrites like yourself spouting moralising
> twaddle, cared?
about...and it ain't about stiffin whores...or merchant semen drunkards...
;-)
Eugene Griessel
Apr 28, 2012, 11:12:07 AM4/28/12
to
Op Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:56:17 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>In article <frCdnXzw1NPyngHS...@supernews.com>,
>dr...@jameford.edu says...
>>
>> Dennis wrote:
>> >
>> > No, what the Secret Service agents apparently did seems unsavory because
>> > of my own experiences.
>>
>> Son, you have failed to grasp the gravity of the episode which
>> has nothing to do with "unsavory".
>> ;-)
>
>Gravity?
>
>Are you insane?
>
>Some guys went abroad on a 'short job' and hired some whores for a
>night's entertainment.
>
>It's what men in 'macho' jobs do, and have always done.
>
>The only shocking thing, and what got them found out, is that some
>cheapskate didn't pay.
>
>If he'd paid up you'd never have heard a word and US Secret Service men
>would still be banging whores in every capital city in the world.
>
>Do you really think the local officials didn't know, and what makes you
>think anyone, except for hypocrites like yourself spouting moralising
>twaddle, cared?
Let's also not forget Quin's numerous posts in the past about "chasing
pussy". However in his simple mind morals are what apply to other
people and not to him. The immoral moralist.
Eugene L Griessel
I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens.
- Woody Allen
wrote:
>In article <frCdnXzw1NPyngHS...@supernews.com>,
>dr...@jameford.edu says...
>>
>> Dennis wrote:
>> >
>> > No, what the Secret Service agents apparently did seems unsavory because
>> > of my own experiences.
>>
>> Son, you have failed to grasp the gravity of the episode which
>> has nothing to do with "unsavory".
>> ;-)
>
>Gravity?
>
>Are you insane?
>
>Some guys went abroad on a 'short job' and hired some whores for a
>night's entertainment.
>
>It's what men in 'macho' jobs do, and have always done.
>
>The only shocking thing, and what got them found out, is that some
>cheapskate didn't pay.
>
>If he'd paid up you'd never have heard a word and US Secret Service men
>would still be banging whores in every capital city in the world.
>
>Do you really think the local officials didn't know, and what makes you
>think anyone, except for hypocrites like yourself spouting moralising
>twaddle, cared?
pussy". However in his simple mind morals are what apply to other
people and not to him. The immoral moralist.
Eugene L Griessel
I'm not afraid of death, I just don't want to be there when it happens.
- Woody Allen
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 28, 2012, 11:52:46 AM4/28/12
to
can do daily in college, but not in military swabbing decks or
sharing a foxhole with your sweaty "buddy" (squandering one's most
virile years)
;-)
Dennis
Apr 28, 2012, 1:03:22 PM4/28/12
to
Dennis
Eugene Griessel
Apr 28, 2012, 1:11:23 PM4/28/12
to
Op 28 Apr 2012 17:03:22 GMT, Dennis <tsalagi...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
That's incorrect. It should be: "in your never-very-humble
ill-informed and ignorant opinion?"
Eugene L Griessel
If At First You Don't Succeed...blame Someone Else And Seek Counseling.
wrote:
ill-informed and ignorant opinion?"
Eugene L Griessel
If At First You Don't Succeed...blame Someone Else And Seek Counseling.
Bill
Apr 28, 2012, 2:48:57 PM4/28/12
to
In article <PI-dnaaapp3llQHS...@supernews.com>,
dr...@jameford.edu says...
I know exactly what the fuss is about.
It's about politicians with a need to direct outrage through the press
in the hope that the more naive, pious and trusting members of their
constituency will vote for them.
It's called 'hypocrisy'.
dr...@jameford.edu says...
It's about politicians with a need to direct outrage through the press
in the hope that the more naive, pious and trusting members of their
constituency will vote for them.
It's called 'hypocrisy'.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 28, 2012, 4:02:00 PM4/28/12
to
no charge
;-)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 28, 2012, 4:10:31 PM4/28/12
to
> It's about politicians with a need to direct outrage through the press
> in the hope that the more naive, pious and trusting members of their
> constituency will vote for them.
>
> It's called 'hypocrisy'.
(I say just fix the SS and move on)
;-)
Dennis
Apr 28, 2012, 4:17:04 PM4/28/12
to
That was a point most people missed with the Monica Lewinsky scandal, so
far as that goes.
Dennis
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 28, 2012, 4:32:25 PM4/28/12
to
;-)
Message has been deleted
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 28, 2012, 4:34:12 PM4/28/12
to
;-)
Dean
Apr 28, 2012, 5:08:12 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 4:34 pm, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@jameford.edu>
wrote:
I see you fake degree clearly is not in geography. It's COLOMBIA.....
wrote:
Dean
Apr 28, 2012, 5:06:50 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 2:48 pm, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <PI-dnaaapp3llQHSnZ2dnUVZ_q-dn...@supernews.com>,
> d...@jameford.edu says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill wrote:
>
> > > In article <frCdnXzw1NPyngHSnZ2dnUVZ_v-dn...@supernews.com>,
> > > d...@jameford.edu says...
Bingo!
> In article <PI-dnaaapp3llQHSnZ2dnUVZ_q-dn...@supernews.com>,
> d...@jameford.edu says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill wrote:
>
> > > In article <frCdnXzw1NPyngHSnZ2dnUVZ_v-dn...@supernews.com>,
> > > d...@jameford.edu says...
Bill
Apr 28, 2012, 5:36:55 PM4/28/12
to
In article <Ac2dnXzk9_4D0QHS...@supernews.com>,
Nope.
No whores in the presidential hotel, no whores when the president was
around, no whores anywhere near the president.
It's a crock of shit.
No whores in the presidential hotel, no whores when the president was
around, no whores anywhere near the president.
It's a crock of shit.
Bill
Apr 28, 2012, 5:38:55 PM4/28/12
to
In article <AvCdnXkAS6gA0wHS...@supernews.com>,
When you work out a way to stop men who carry guns when abroad, on
official government duty, using whores let us all know will you.
official government duty, using whores let us all know will you.
Message has been deleted
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Apr 28, 2012, 7:09:42 PM4/28/12
to
In article <5IidncLr4acizgHS...@supernews.com>,
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>
seeing as you are a liar, fraud and tauro-pleromatic I hereby claim "Dr. Vincent
Quin, Ph.D." as my own
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>
seeing as you are a liar, fraud and tauro-pleromatic I hereby claim "Dr. Vincent
Quin, Ph.D." as my own
Dennis
Apr 28, 2012, 7:10:21 PM4/28/12
to
Dennis
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 28, 2012, 8:11:38 PM4/28/12
to
Son, there are many men who don't use prostitutes (much less foreign
prostitutes)...and again, my dear peabrain, it ain't about sex...if it
were just an issue of sex then there are easy ways to fix that problem.
Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
(btw, my naive one, carrying guns has nothing to do with sex either)
;-)
Bill
Apr 28, 2012, 8:26:27 PM4/28/12
to
In article <67GdnSZLIfa9GgHS...@supernews.com>,
I know, but there are always some that will.
And what's more you won't stop them...
And if you think my father didn't know that then you're a fool.
> Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
> problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
There is no security angle, there never was.
This has pretty obviously been going on for years and if one of the men
hadn't refused to pay it would still be going on now.
At no point has anyone in a position to know claimed that there was any
sort of security breach.
Within a couple of trips I imagine the military people will be shagging
tarts again.
> (btw, my naive one, carrying guns has nothing to do with sex either)
If you honestly believe there is no psycho-sexual connection between
guns, especially pistols, and sex then you're an even bigger fool than
I took you for.
And that really is saying something...
And what's more you won't stop them...
And if you think my father didn't know that then you're a fool.
> Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
> problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
This has pretty obviously been going on for years and if one of the men
hadn't refused to pay it would still be going on now.
At no point has anyone in a position to know claimed that there was any
sort of security breach.
Within a couple of trips I imagine the military people will be shagging
tarts again.
> (btw, my naive one, carrying guns has nothing to do with sex either)
guns, especially pistols, and sex then you're an even bigger fool than
I took you for.
And that really is saying something...
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 28, 2012, 9:00:24 PM4/28/12
to
sailor stories whom the Secret Service should emulate
;-)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 28, 2012, 10:18:16 PM4/28/12
to
discussion (was he a whoring drunkard sailor too?)
>>Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
>>problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
>
>
> There is no security angle, there never was.
> At no point has anyone in a position to know claimed that there was any
> sort of security breach.
> Within a couple of trips I imagine the military people will be shagging
> tarts again.
reliable security is mandatory, and the Secret Service is not
merely "military" like your sailor drunkards.
(btw, a tart is not necessarily a foreign prostitute...more naivety)
>>(btw, my naive one, carrying guns has nothing to do with sex either)
>
>
> If you honestly believe there is no psycho-sexual connection between
> guns, especially pistols, and sex
> then you're an even bigger fool than
> I took you for.
>
> And that really is saying something...
an unavoidable norm...and i believe you believe that
;-)
Message has been deleted
Dennis
Apr 29, 2012, 12:59:46 AM4/29/12
to
Dennis
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 29, 2012, 1:10:52 AM4/29/12
to
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Fwed, what do you suppose this means:
------------------------------------------------------
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking to reporters said
"My biggest concern is the issue of security and what could
possibly have been jeopardized by virtue of this kind of behavior,"
------------------------------------------------------
anything to do with a secuwity pwoblem, son?
or this:
------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y), chairman of the House Homeland
Security Committee which oversees the Secret Service program
said on NBC's "Today" show the most important question was
whether "any of those foreign nationals (prostitutes) had access
at any time to any data or information that could have
compromised the president of the United States or made an enemy
force aware of the practices and procedures of the Secret
Service."
------------------------------------------------------
anything to do with a secuwity pwoblem, Fwed, you pea bwain?
he he he
;-)
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>
>>Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
>>problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
>
>
> There was no "*security* problem", you ignorant twat.
>
>>Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
>>problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
>
>
Fwed, what do you suppose this means:
------------------------------------------------------
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking to reporters said
"My biggest concern is the issue of security and what could
possibly have been jeopardized by virtue of this kind of behavior,"
------------------------------------------------------
anything to do with a secuwity pwoblem, son?
or this:
------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y), chairman of the House Homeland
Security Committee which oversees the Secret Service program
said on NBC's "Today" show the most important question was
whether "any of those foreign nationals (prostitutes) had access
at any time to any data or information that could have
compromised the president of the United States or made an enemy
force aware of the practices and procedures of the Secret
Service."
------------------------------------------------------
anything to do with a secuwity pwoblem, Fwed, you pea bwain?
he he he
;-)
Message has been deleted
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 29, 2012, 2:29:32 AM4/29/12
to
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
>>>>problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
>>>
>>>
>>>There was no "*security* problem", you ignorant twat.
>>
>>Fwed, what do you suppose this means:
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking to reporters said
>>"My biggest concern is the issue of security and what could
>>possibly have been jeopardized by virtue of this kind of behavior,"
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>anything to do with a secuwity pwoblem, son?
>>
>
>
> Not really. That's a political stooge trying to sound righteous.
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
>>>>problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
>>>
>>>
>>>There was no "*security* problem", you ignorant twat.
>>
>>Fwed, what do you suppose this means:
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking to reporters said
>>"My biggest concern is the issue of security and what could
>>possibly have been jeopardized by virtue of this kind of behavior,"
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>anything to do with a secuwity pwoblem, son?
>>
>
>
>
>
>>or this:
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y), chairman of the House Homeland
>>Security Committee which oversees the Secret Service program
>>said on NBC's "Today" show the most important question was
>>whether "any of those foreign nationals (prostitutes) had access
>>at any time to any data or information that could have
>>compromised the president of the United States or made an enemy
>>force aware of the practices and procedures of the Secret
>>Service."
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>anything to do with a secuwity pwoblem, Fwed, you pea bwain?
>>
>
>
> Nope, since they didn't.
>
>>or this:
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y), chairman of the House Homeland
>>Security Committee which oversees the Secret Service program
>>said on NBC's "Today" show the most important question was
>>whether "any of those foreign nationals (prostitutes) had access
>>at any time to any data or information that could have
>>compromised the president of the United States or made an enemy
>>force aware of the practices and procedures of the Secret
>>Service."
>>------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>anything to do with a secuwity pwoblem, Fwed, you pea bwain?
>>
>
>
No, Fwed, you refer to security breach, not a security problem.
(seems pea bwain fwed now wants to fall back to a dictionary debate)
;-)
Message has been deleted
Bill
Apr 29, 2012, 7:26:57 AM4/29/12
to
In article <YZydnV0wGPNTOQHS...@supernews.com>,
I appreciate it's an attempt to try and make me angry and get me to make
mistakes, but that has never worked.
> >>Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
> >>problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
> >
> >
> > There is no security angle, there never was.
>
> you'd have to say that to defend your naivety about sex...and security
No.
If there was a security risk I'm sure you'll tell me exactly what it
was, remembering using your vast experience of these matters and your
holding the 'chair in security' at whatever spurious academic
institution you currently work for.
> > At no point has anyone in a position to know claimed that there was any
> > sort of security breach.
>
> there was no security breach...the issue is *potential* security breach
There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach' outside of a
newspaper editor's office.
There are 'security breaches' and 'weak/poor security'.
Neither existed in this case.
> > Within a couple of trips I imagine the military people will be shagging
> > tarts again.
>
> Son, the President is not just some CEO on a business trip...highly
> reliable security is mandatory, and the Secret Service is not
> merely "military" like your sailor drunkards.
That's just your provincial chauvinism showing.
Stop trying to pretend the USA is something special and its head of
state needs special protection.
And the US Secret Service is certainly a form of paramilitary police.
> (btw, a tart is not necessarily a foreign prostitute...more naivety)
You know exactly what I mean.
> >>(btw, my naive one, carrying guns has nothing to do with sex either)
> >
> >
> > If you honestly believe there is no psycho-sexual connection between
> > guns, especially pistols, and sex
>
> Son, the connection is not axiomatic...unless you are perverted or naive.
Of course it is. Bodyguards don't need to carry guns, they're not for
shooting back, they're for putting themselves between a bullet and
their 'principle'.
With someone like the US President with his huge security entourage it
would be simple to arrange for all firearms to be carried by uniformed
officers so there would be absolutely no confusion about who gets shot
if any shooting starts.
The people in civilian clothes could be unarmed.
In situations where there's only one person with a gun (For example the
single detective who guards various individuals in the British royal
family) it wouldn't matter because anyone but him/her with a gun is a
baddie.
> son, you're the one claiming drunken binges with foreign prostitutes
is
> an unavoidable norm...and i believe you believe that
I can think of no way of stopping it that is reasonable.
Can you?
dr...@jameford.edu says...
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> >>Son, there are many men who don't use prostitutes (much less foreign
> >>prostitutes)...and again,
> >
> >
> > I know, but there are always some that will.
> >
> > And what's more you won't stop them...
> >
> > And if you think my father didn't know that then you're a fool.
>
> you lost me here, son, how did your father get into the
> discussion (was he a whoring drunkard sailor too?)
You're the one who keeps calling me 'son'.
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> >>Son, there are many men who don't use prostitutes (much less foreign
> >>prostitutes)...and again,
> >
> >
> > I know, but there are always some that will.
> >
> > And what's more you won't stop them...
> >
> > And if you think my father didn't know that then you're a fool.
>
> you lost me here, son, how did your father get into the
> discussion (was he a whoring drunkard sailor too?)
I appreciate it's an attempt to try and make me angry and get me to make
mistakes, but that has never worked.
> >>Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
> >>problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
> >
> >
> > There is no security angle, there never was.
>
> you'd have to say that to defend your naivety about sex...and security
If there was a security risk I'm sure you'll tell me exactly what it
was, remembering using your vast experience of these matters and your
holding the 'chair in security' at whatever spurious academic
institution you currently work for.
> > At no point has anyone in a position to know claimed that there was any
> > sort of security breach.
>
> there was no security breach...the issue is *potential* security breach
newspaper editor's office.
There are 'security breaches' and 'weak/poor security'.
Neither existed in this case.
> > Within a couple of trips I imagine the military people will be shagging
> > tarts again.
>
> Son, the President is not just some CEO on a business trip...highly
> reliable security is mandatory, and the Secret Service is not
> merely "military" like your sailor drunkards.
Stop trying to pretend the USA is something special and its head of
state needs special protection.
And the US Secret Service is certainly a form of paramilitary police.
> (btw, a tart is not necessarily a foreign prostitute...more naivety)
> >>(btw, my naive one, carrying guns has nothing to do with sex either)
> >
> >
> > If you honestly believe there is no psycho-sexual connection between
> > guns, especially pistols, and sex
>
> Son, the connection is not axiomatic...unless you are perverted or naive.
shooting back, they're for putting themselves between a bullet and
their 'principle'.
With someone like the US President with his huge security entourage it
would be simple to arrange for all firearms to be carried by uniformed
officers so there would be absolutely no confusion about who gets shot
if any shooting starts.
The people in civilian clothes could be unarmed.
In situations where there's only one person with a gun (For example the
single detective who guards various individuals in the British royal
family) it wouldn't matter because anyone but him/her with a gun is a
baddie.
> son, you're the one claiming drunken binges with foreign prostitutes
is
> an unavoidable norm...and i believe you believe that
Can you?
Bill
Apr 29, 2012, 7:28:17 AM4/29/12
to
In article <d4CdncXtmtPfUAHS...@supernews.com>,
dr...@jameford.edu says...
He doesn't actually see a problem.
dr...@jameford.edu says...
>
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
> >>problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
> >
> >
> > There was no "*security* problem", you ignorant twat.
>
> Fwed, what do you suppose this means:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking to reporters said
> "My biggest concern is the issue of security and what could
> possibly have been jeopardized by virtue of this kind of behavior,"
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> anything to do with a secuwity pwoblem, son?
Read it again.
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
> >>problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
> >
> >
> > There was no "*security* problem", you ignorant twat.
>
> Fwed, what do you suppose this means:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, speaking to reporters said
> "My biggest concern is the issue of security and what could
> possibly have been jeopardized by virtue of this kind of behavior,"
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> anything to do with a secuwity pwoblem, son?
He doesn't actually see a problem.
>
> or this:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y), chairman of the House Homeland
> Security Committee which oversees the Secret Service program
> said on NBC's "Today" show the most important question was
> whether "any of those foreign nationals (prostitutes) had access
> at any time to any data or information that could have
> compromised the president of the United States or made an enemy
> force aware of the practices and procedures of the Secret
> Service."
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> anything to do with a secuwity pwoblem, Fwed, you pea bwain?
No security problem there son.
> or this:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y), chairman of the House Homeland
> Security Committee which oversees the Secret Service program
> said on NBC's "Today" show the most important question was
> whether "any of those foreign nationals (prostitutes) had access
> at any time to any data or information that could have
> compromised the president of the United States or made an enemy
> force aware of the practices and procedures of the Secret
> Service."
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> anything to do with a secuwity pwoblem, Fwed, you pea bwain?
Message has been deleted
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 29, 2012, 2:59:32 PM4/29/12
to
Il 28/04/2012 22:17, Dennis ha scritto:
>> In this particular case, Presidential security.
>>
>> no charge
>> ;-)
>
> You certainly have a point there!
>
> That was a point most people missed with the Monica Lewinsky scandal, so
> far as that goes.
Personally, *IF* United States notice the dangers of whores too nearby
>> In this particular case, Presidential security.
>>
>> no charge
>> ;-)
>
> You certainly have a point there!
>
> That was a point most people missed with the Monica Lewinsky scandal, so
> far as that goes.
to people with good ears nearby the seats of Power, it's a good thing
for _my_ country, because perhaps became more easy convincing 'em that
is in the best interest of everyone helping getting the dwarf into
retirement....
Personally, I consider *really* effective the various "radio barracks"
or "radio foc'sle", after an intelligent filtering of noise (I think is
the actual meaning of "intelligence") and trust me, the Ars Speculatoria
is still alive (I'm sure that I have sayed enough ;) )
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 29, 2012, 3:08:42 PM4/29/12
to
Il 28/04/2012 23:44, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>> No whores in the presidential hotel, no whores when the president was
>> around, no whores anywhere near the president.
>>
>
> Maybe that's what the President is upset about?
>> No whores in the presidential hotel, no whores when the president was
>> around, no whores anywhere near the president.
>>
>
If I tell the many things I got from bored Carabinieri around the Seven
Hills, you ought to take really seriously the issue (whores can get
straight the fact, if they can report correctly)
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 29, 2012, 3:18:32 PM4/29/12
to
Il 29/04/2012 02:11, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. ha scritto:
> (now you've proven yourself naive about both security and sex)
>
> Son, there are many men who don't use prostitutes (much less foreign
> prostitutes)...and again, my dear peabrain, it ain't about sex...if it
> were just an issue of sex then there are easy ways to fix that problem.
you known that I'm from Italy, and having fought a war with the top
> (now you've proven yourself naive about both security and sex)
>
> Son, there are many men who don't use prostitutes (much less foreign
> prostitutes)...and again, my dear peabrain, it ain't about sex...if it
> were just an issue of sex then there are easy ways to fix that problem.
executive office more than compromised was definitively enough....
if no one here has realised, here both PM and MoD (for other reasons)
ends put out of the loop and the war was conducted directly from the
Qurinal Hill and Military.
> Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
> problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 29, 2012, 3:21:01 PM4/29/12
to
Il 29/04/2012 05:22, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."<dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>
>>
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."<dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
>> problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
>>
>
>> problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
>>
>
> There was no "*security* problem", you ignorant twat.
The issue was not of physical security, but intelligence security... I'm
from Italy, you known.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 29, 2012, 3:23:05 PM4/29/12
to
Il 29/04/2012 11:45, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
> And yet it's our Coldine Creme Doctor here who is flailing and
> quibbling.
Actually he has a point... be it boredom or lust, but one can extract
good intelligence from the security ranks & files...
> And yet it's our Coldine Creme Doctor here who is flailing and
> quibbling.
Actually he has a point... be it boredom or lust, but one can extract
good intelligence from the security ranks & files...
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
dott.Piergiorgio
Apr 29, 2012, 6:02:04 PM4/29/12
to
Il 29/04/2012 21:43, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>> If I tell the many things I got from bored Carabinieri around the Seven
>> Hills, you ought to take really seriously the issue (whores can get
>> straight the fact, if they can report correctly)
>>
>
> There is a difference between Carabinieri and Secret Service agents on
>> If I tell the many things I got from bored Carabinieri around the Seven
>> Hills, you ought to take really seriously the issue (whores can get
>> straight the fact, if they can report correctly)
>>
>
> the Detail.
>
> That's not a slight to the Carabinieri, but merely a statement that
> they are different from the Presidential Detail of the Secret Service
> and each has the appropriate level of security consciousness.
If you still understand "security" as "physical security"....
What I'm referring isn't weakness of physical security, but political
intelligence.... and a whore can not only get political intel, but also
manouvre it, not a new thing here, one of the best examples here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum
also. trust me, here In Italy even the mood of the watchstanders says
much, if correlated to the specific Palace they guard; I can get good
pictures of the state of Italian politics in an afternoon and night thru
the correct spots on or around the Seven Hills (aside the methapysical
activities, of course)
everyone knew that after my periodic "wanderings" into Roman Nights I
tend to post here in a rather unusual style...
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D
Apr 29, 2012, 6:58:41 PM4/29/12
to
In article <ePednYLums8uQgHS...@supernews.com>,
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>
> No, Fwed, you refer to security breach, not a security problem.
what caliber was that security breech?
>
> No, Fwed, you refer to security breach, not a security problem.
Message has been deleted
Andrew Swallow
Apr 30, 2012, 7:44:03 AM4/30/12
to
On 28/04/2012 15:56, Bill wrote:
> In article<frCdnXzw1NPyngHS...@supernews.com>,
> dr...@jameford.edu says...
>>
>> Dennis wrote:
>>>
>>> No, what the Secret Service agents apparently did seems unsavory because
>>> of my own experiences.
>>
>> Son, you have failed to grasp the gravity of the episode which
>> has nothing to do with "unsavory".
>> ;-)
>
> Gravity?
>
> Are you insane?
>
> Some guys went abroad on a 'short job' and hired some whores for a
> night's entertainment.
>
> It's what men in 'macho' jobs do, and have always done.
>
> The only shocking thing, and what got them found out, is that some
> cheapskate didn't pay.
>
> If he'd paid up you'd never have heard a word and US Secret Service men
> would still be banging whores in every capital city in the world.
>
> Do you really think the local officials didn't know, and what makes you
> think anyone, except for hypocrites like yourself spouting moralising
> twaddle, cared?
>
I am a bit suspicious about that low payment. That is the actions of a
> In article<frCdnXzw1NPyngHS...@supernews.com>,
> dr...@jameford.edu says...
>>
>> Dennis wrote:
>>>
>>> No, what the Secret Service agents apparently did seems unsavory because
>>> of my own experiences.
>>
>> Son, you have failed to grasp the gravity of the episode which
>> has nothing to do with "unsavory".
>> ;-)
>
> Gravity?
>
> Are you insane?
>
> Some guys went abroad on a 'short job' and hired some whores for a
> night's entertainment.
>
> It's what men in 'macho' jobs do, and have always done.
>
> The only shocking thing, and what got them found out, is that some
> cheapskate didn't pay.
>
> If he'd paid up you'd never have heard a word and US Secret Service men
> would still be banging whores in every capital city in the world.
>
> Do you really think the local officials didn't know, and what makes you
> think anyone, except for hypocrites like yourself spouting moralising
> twaddle, cared?
>
first timer, or he thought that the women were being paid by the country
he was visiting.
Is it normal to bribe/entertain bodyguards?
Andrew Swallow
Bill
Apr 30, 2012, 8:22:14 AM4/30/12
to
In article <lvydnShmy6ud5gPS...@bt.com>,
am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
Outside of government service it certainly is, indeed in the
entertainment industry the treatment of 'personal staff' and what
they're fed and how they're housed during the performance is invariably
part of the 'technical rider' at the back of the contract.
am.sw...@btinternet.com says...
entertainment industry the treatment of 'personal staff' and what
they're fed and how they're housed during the performance is invariably
part of the 'technical rider' at the back of the contract.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 30, 2012, 7:59:10 PM4/30/12
to
Bill wrote:
>
> There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv interview.
>
> There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
(i tire of this ignorant fool)
;-)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 30, 2012, 8:54:28 PM4/30/12
to
hey peabwain fwed, last week King said in another tv interview:
"This certainly could have compromised the President's security."
secuwity pwobwem fwed?
;-)
Bill
Apr 30, 2012, 8:59:53 PM4/30/12
to
In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLS...@supernews.com>,
dr...@jameford.edu says...
dr...@jameford.edu says...
>
> Bill wrote:
> >
> > There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
>
> ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv interview.
>
He's not a security professional.
> Bill wrote:
> >
> > There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
>
> ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv interview.
>
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 30, 2012, 9:01:11 PM4/30/12
to
dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
> Il 29/04/2012 05:22, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>
>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."<dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
>>> problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
>>>
>>
>> There was no "*security* problem", you ignorant twat.
>
>
> The issue was not of physical security, but intelligence security...
No, it was both physical and intelligence...
> Il 29/04/2012 05:22, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>
>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."<dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
>>> problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
>>>
>>
>> There was no "*security* problem", you ignorant twat.
>
>
> The issue was not of physical security, but intelligence security...
where o where did you get the stupid idea it was not physical security, you old fool
;-)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Apr 30, 2012, 9:07:09 PM4/30/12
to
Bill wrote:
> In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLS...@supernews.com>,
> dr...@jameford.edu says...
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>>There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
>>
>>ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv interview.
>>
>
>
> He's not a security professional.
>
ha! it seems this ignorant fool does not know who king is
> In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLS...@supernews.com>,
> dr...@jameford.edu says...
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>
>>>There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
>>
>>ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv interview.
>>
>
>
> He's not a security professional.
>
;-)
Kerryn Offord
Apr 30, 2012, 10:39:39 PM4/30/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King
He is chairman of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Homeland_Security
That does not make him any kind of security professional
Message has been deleted
Bill
May 1, 2012, 7:18:26 AM5/1/12
to
In article <7vednfWRGYq_qgLS...@supernews.com>,
dr...@jameford.edu says...
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> > In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLS...@supernews.com>,
> > dr...@jameford.edu says...
> >
> >>Bill wrote:
> >>
> >>>There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
> >>
> >>ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv interview.
> >>
> >
> >
> > He's not a security professional.
> >
>
> ha! it seems this ignorant fool does not know who king is
> ;-)
Ah but I do, he's a politician.
>
> Bill wrote:
>
> > In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLS...@supernews.com>,
> > dr...@jameford.edu says...
> >
> >>Bill wrote:
> >>
> >>>There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
> >>
> >>ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv interview.
> >>
> >
> >
> > He's not a security professional.
> >
>
> ha! it seems this ignorant fool does not know who king is
> ;-)
Bill
May 1, 2012, 7:19:16 AM5/1/12
to
In article <7vednfqRGYohqALS...@supernews.com>,
dr...@jameford.edu says...
do you.
dr...@jameford.edu says...
>
> dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>
> > Il 29/04/2012 05:22, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
> >
> >> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."<dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
> >>> problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There was no "*security* problem", you ignorant twat.
> >
> >
> > The issue was not of physical security, but intelligence security...
>
> No, it was both physical and intelligence...
>
You don't actually know what 'physical security' in this context means
> dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>
> > Il 29/04/2012 05:22, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
> >
> >> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."<dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
> >>> problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
> >>>
> >>
> >> There was no "*security* problem", you ignorant twat.
> >
> >
> > The issue was not of physical security, but intelligence security...
>
> No, it was both physical and intelligence...
>
do you.
dott.Piergiorgio
May 1, 2012, 4:10:29 PM5/1/12
to
Il 01/05/2012 13:19, Bill ha scritto:
> In article<7vednfqRGYohqALS...@supernews.com>,
> dr...@jameford.edu says...
>>
>> dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>>
>>> Il 29/04/2012 05:22, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."<dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
>>>>> problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was no "*security* problem", you ignorant twat.
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue was not of physical security, but intelligence security...
>>
>> No, it was both physical and intelligence...
>>
>
> You don't actually know what 'physical security' in this context means
> do you.
I guess he known; the coldine guy insults me from the security of the
> In article<7vednfqRGYohqALS...@supernews.com>,
> dr...@jameford.edu says...
>>
>> dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>>
>>> Il 29/04/2012 05:22, Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."<dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless of your misconceptions about sex, I'm sure the *security*
>>>>> problem is being fixed...and this will *not* happen again.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was no "*security* problem", you ignorant twat.
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue was not of physical security, but intelligence security...
>>
>> No, it was both physical and intelligence...
>>
>
> You don't actually know what 'physical security' in this context means
> do you.
Ocean, but is more cautious in dealing with fred and people much more
local to him than me and you... ;)
Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.
security :D )
Andrew Chaplin
May 3, 2012, 7:17:32 AM5/3/12
to
Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.2a09d6e13...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <7vednfWRGYq_qgLS...@supernews.com>,
> dr...@jameford.edu says...
>>
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>> > In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLS...@supernews.com>,
>> > dr...@jameford.edu says...
>> >
>> >>Bill wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
>> >>
>> >>ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv
>> >>interview.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > He's not a security professional.
>> >
>>
>> ha! it seems this ignorant fool does not know who king is
>> ;-)
>
> Ah but I do, he's a politician.
William, Quim does not know what a professional is.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
news:MPG.2a09d6e13...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <7vednfWRGYq_qgLS...@supernews.com>,
> dr...@jameford.edu says...
>>
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>> > In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLS...@supernews.com>,
>> > dr...@jameford.edu says...
>> >
>> >>Bill wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
>> >>
>> >>ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv
>> >>interview.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > He's not a security professional.
>> >
>>
>> ha! it seems this ignorant fool does not know who king is
>> ;-)
>
> Ah but I do, he's a politician.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Eugene Griessel
May 3, 2012, 7:23:21 AM5/3/12
to
Op Thu, 3 May 2012 11:17:32 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Chaplin
Eugene L Griessel
If the pen is mightier than the sword and a picture is worth
a thousand words, how dangerous is a Fax?
<ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:MPG.2a09d6e13...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> In article <7vednfWRGYq_qgLS...@supernews.com>,
>> dr...@jameford.edu says...
>>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLS...@supernews.com>,
>>> > dr...@jameford.edu says...
>>> >
>>> >>Bill wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
>>> >>
>>> >>ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv
>>> >>interview.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > He's not a security professional.
>>> >
>>>
>>> ha! it seems this ignorant fool does not know who king is
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Ah but I do, he's a politician.
>
>William, Quim does not know what a professional is.
Of course he does - his mother was one.
>Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:MPG.2a09d6e13...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> In article <7vednfWRGYq_qgLS...@supernews.com>,
>> dr...@jameford.edu says...
>>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLS...@supernews.com>,
>>> > dr...@jameford.edu says...
>>> >
>>> >>Bill wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
>>> >>
>>> >>ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv
>>> >>interview.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > He's not a security professional.
>>> >
>>>
>>> ha! it seems this ignorant fool does not know who king is
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Ah but I do, he's a politician.
>
>William, Quim does not know what a professional is.
Eugene L Griessel
If the pen is mightier than the sword and a picture is worth
a thousand words, how dangerous is a Fax?
Bill
May 3, 2012, 9:08:40 AM5/3/12
to
In article <XnsA0484A2651...@88.198.244.100>,
ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com says...
security/intelligence business use words in a very different way from
people who haven't.
Of course this is common in most fields and in academia is known as
'accessibility'.
The easiest example I can give is that to a security professional the
phrase 'It isn't secret, it's confidential' means something very
different to what a person who doesn't understand the jargon thinks it
means.
That the ghastly doctor doesn't know this does rather undermine my idea
that he could be the front for an academic study of some kind.
ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com says...
>
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.2a09d6e13...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > In article <7vednfWRGYq_qgLS...@supernews.com>,
> > dr...@jameford.edu says...
> >>
> >> Bill wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLS...@supernews.com>,
> >> > dr...@jameford.edu says...
> >> >
> >> >>Bill wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
> >> >>
> >> >>ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv
> >> >>interview.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > He's not a security professional.
> >> >
> >>
> >> ha! it seems this ignorant fool does not know who king is
> >> ;-)
> >
> > Ah but I do, he's a politician.
>
> William, Quim does not know what a professional is.
It's interesting that people who are/have been involved in the
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.2a09d6e13...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > In article <7vednfWRGYq_qgLS...@supernews.com>,
> > dr...@jameford.edu says...
> >>
> >> Bill wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLS...@supernews.com>,
> >> > dr...@jameford.edu says...
> >> >
> >> >>Bill wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
> >> >>
> >> >>ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv
> >> >>interview.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > He's not a security professional.
> >> >
> >>
> >> ha! it seems this ignorant fool does not know who king is
> >> ;-)
> >
> > Ah but I do, he's a politician.
>
> William, Quim does not know what a professional is.
security/intelligence business use words in a very different way from
people who haven't.
Of course this is common in most fields and in academia is known as
'accessibility'.
The easiest example I can give is that to a security professional the
phrase 'It isn't secret, it's confidential' means something very
different to what a person who doesn't understand the jargon thinks it
means.
That the ghastly doctor doesn't know this does rather undermine my idea
that he could be the front for an academic study of some kind.
Dean
May 3, 2012, 3:14:58 PM5/3/12
to
On May 3, 9:08 am, Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <XnsA0484A2651E95bluegrif...@88.198.244.100>,
> ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:MPG.2a09d6e13...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > > In article <7vednfWRGYq_qgLSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dn...@supernews.com>,
> > > d...@jameford.edu says...
>
> > >> Bill wrote:
>
> > >> > In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLSnZ2dnUVZ_tidn...@supernews.com>,
> > >> > d...@jameford.edu says...
doctor.
> In article <XnsA0484A2651E95bluegrif...@88.198.244.100>,
> ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:MPG.2a09d6e13...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > > In article <7vednfWRGYq_qgLSnZ2dnUVZ_t-dn...@supernews.com>,
> > > d...@jameford.edu says...
>
> > >> Bill wrote:
>
> > >> > In article <lcCdnWbXka-ougLSnZ2dnUVZ_tidn...@supernews.com>,
> > >> > d...@jameford.edu says...
>
> > >> >>Bill wrote:
>
> > >> >>>There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
>
> > >> >>ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv
> > >> >>interview.
>
> > >> > He's not a security professional.
>
> > >> ha! it seems this ignorant fool does not know who king is
> > >> ;-)
>
> > > Ah but I do, he's a politician.
>
> > William, Quim does not know what a professional is.
>
> It's interesting that people who are/have been involved in the
> security/intelligence business use words in a very different way from
> people who haven't.
>
> Of course this is common in most fields and in academia is known as
> 'accessibility'.
>
> The easiest example I can give is that to a security professional the
> phrase 'It isn't secret, it's confidential' means something very
> different to what a person who doesn't understand the jargon thinks it
> means.
>
> That the ghastly doctor doesn't know this does rather undermine my idea
> that he could be the front for an academic study of some kind.
>
> --
> William Black
>
> When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
> time to leave.
Please William, he may be ghastly (almost certainly) but he's no
> > >> >>Bill wrote:
>
> > >> >>>There is no such thing as 'a potential security breach'
>
> > >> >>ha ha!!...King himself said "potential security breach" in one tv
> > >> >>interview.
>
> > >> > He's not a security professional.
>
> > >> ha! it seems this ignorant fool does not know who king is
> > >> ;-)
>
> > > Ah but I do, he's a politician.
>
> > William, Quim does not know what a professional is.
>
> It's interesting that people who are/have been involved in the
> security/intelligence business use words in a very different way from
> people who haven't.
>
> Of course this is common in most fields and in academia is known as
> 'accessibility'.
>
> The easiest example I can give is that to a security professional the
> phrase 'It isn't secret, it's confidential' means something very
> different to what a person who doesn't understand the jargon thinks it
> means.
>
> That the ghastly doctor doesn't know this does rather undermine my idea
> that he could be the front for an academic study of some kind.
>
> --
> William Black
>
> When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
> time to leave.
doctor.
0 new messages