🚀 go-pugleaf

In <n0e07t@ofa123.fidonet.org> Erik.Lindano@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

> 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). 

You're completely wrong about this. People are simply telling you that you
don't have a beginner's clue about cryptography. You refuse to listen to what
they're saying. It's not NIH. Let me try to explain it differently.

Why don't you post to sci.physics, telling everyone that you've developed a
perpetual motion machine. Then you can whine the same way when experts "post
theoretical considerations" about why they won't waste time with you.

Even better, why don't you post to rec.autos.tech and tell them you've
developed a new carburetor that lets cars run on tap water. You might find
a few people there who would believe you.

> 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?

There's nothing wrong with posting here. Perhaps you will find beginners who
will accept the challenge. Just don't get all huffy when experts dismiss it
out of hand. At least they told you what your friend needs to do for them to
be interested.

It's not a conspiracy. But if it were, nobody would be allowed to admit it.