From Cetme-M:
Hi Mike,
I have noticed a disturbing tendency for folks to make documents "available" for downloading or printing but only if one "signs-up" for x, y or z service.
There is a reason I have a throw-away email, ( and do not and will not use gmail), and also a reason why I will not sign-up to one of those download sites. It is part of OPSEC.
I am fully aware that IP addresses can be logged and co-related back to a particular computer, (unless I go to wayyyy more trouble than I think is necessary at this time), but why should I make that process any easier by just logging in to a service that is going to ask me a bunch of impertinent questions to allow me to download a document someone is making available for "free". Sure... I have their "assurances" that I am not being logged and that my info will not be given away but do I really want to place my faith in that, (think AOL and it's previous disgorgement of private emails to "law enforcement" without so much as a warrant).
BTW I do appreciate the fact that, in most cases, you tend t.o copy an entire article instead of making us link out to it.
Thanks!
4 comments:
you never know when those remote files are going to disappear.
Some articles are only available for limited time before they vanish or are archived to the "for pay pages". Linking to an article that may not be there a month from now may not be practical.
Thought you might like this: The NYT has endorsed the CIDG concept!
Anonymous 7:07: I'd hold off on
"endorsed" until the NYT 1. expressly
changes its position on any and
all gun control, IOW says "we have
been wrong for years. and 2. warns
one and all about use of units from
other jurisdictions, be that other
USA states or other nations and ...
various other actions I don't have time to relate or think about right now.
This is how it's going to go down,
I think: Mumbai(s) here and everywhere. There's no way the
official forces can forestall or
defeat them all.
Now we should think about what
the JBTs in government have wanted to do and how they might use this
"emergency" to do it. Granted that
I think a lot of ppl will suddenly wake up and smell the coffee, it still might be dreadful.
Thinking about Mike V's report of
the AL LEO who said he'd be willing
to do gun expropriation in "the projects", we should also wonder about just how much minority recruiting the new terrorists have
been doing, and about the not
implausible claims TPTB (for some
values of "be") will make about the
need for such searches.
It will be really hard to tell who the players are and there won't be
any scorecard.
For a pilot program of the the IIIers might be smeared, read
Phyllis Chesler's February 10th
synopsis of SFC Ariel (Orion) Siegelman upon his return from combat operations in Gaza.
I'm having a bit of a hard time
transposing this into American terms, but think of a scenario with
some IIIers making at least a successful stand somewhere, and
real terrorists attacking again
elsewhere. AS's "defeat is victory" line will allow the government to leave the terrorists alone and characterize the IIIers as another brand of terrorists, how
successfully I cannot say, instead of allowing genuine CIDGs to fight,
which in any case should have been
overtly and massively welcomed and supported eight years ago (almost) at a minimum.
I hope this is making some kind of
sense. That's the way I see the future. Mumbai seems to be a wake up call for some I know.
My contacts with ppl who have been or are in the IDF are exceedingly few, but I can say that they have
responded with irritated disgust to
AS's characterization of the conclusion of Cast Lead. Think of
the GIs in the Herblock cartoons of old looking at some bright ignorant reporter. For another
view of Cast Lead, see cycjec's
comment on Will Grigg's Pro Libertate post on Gaza about two
weeks ago, which quotes Barry Chamish at length.
I hope all of this made some sense.
Post a Comment