🚀 go-pugleaf

Writes lwloen@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Larry Loen):
 
 > Please send your friend to the library first.  Also, please see 
 > my recent posting "temporary, independent FAQ" for sci.crypt.
 >
 
 I already sent him to the library. He says he couldn't find anything
 related to his program there. 
 
 >
 > It is much, much easier to propose a system than to analyze it 
 > properly.  You will probably find little enthusiasm here and that 
 > may be a mystery to you until you read the FAQ file.
 
 I don't want to get myself involved in the technical aspects of 
 cryptology (-graphy?). I was simply in the process of trying to 
 judge something that had been presented to me, and I wanted to 
 find out whether any of the people who often write authoritative 
 articles here about encryption, etc., are really able to actually 
 crack a certain encryption product or whether they're just good 
 at writing theoretical posts, that's all.
 
 I realize that it must be a lot easier to just post theoretical 
 considerations on such matters than to do any _actual_ decryption, 
 but I thought that the experts here were knowledgeable in a 
 real, practical sense, and capable of putting their obvious 
 knowledge to actual use, that's all.  Perhaps I was mistaken.
 
 The most peculiar thing about your rejection, and that of the other
 person who replied, is that both of you are rejecting the challenge
 _without having ever seen the product you are rejecting!_.  This 
 worries me immensely.  Makes me wonder if you may not simply be 
 avoiding the challenge under some pretenses.  Am I mistaken?
 
 In my experience in the technical world, I've found that prouncing 
 some idea to be unworthy _ex cathedra_ gathers applause only among 
 the NIH (Not-Invented-Here) crowd.  The rest of the world sees only 
 their arbitrary pronouncement, and doesn't give much credit to the
 rejecter(s). 
 
 But if all these experts are unwilling to even _try_... hmmmm.
 

--- Maximus 2.00