flipper wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:28:05 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:45:09 -0600, Les Cargill
wrote:
snip


But it's still a non-standard. I suppose there's a sort of calculus for
security "engineering" but I have to wonder how effective it is.

It amazes me how you come up with a contradictory 'wonder', as if the
issue is the 'laxity' of ignoring the vulnerability inherent to a
clandestine relationship.


No, you're right about that. The whole subject just inspires
incredulity. Sorry if my post was troublesome. But *at
some level*, it's rather bizarre, even if you understand
the basic logic of it.

snip

Speaking of contradictions, I went to some length in order to preclude
you arriving at the very conclusion you just presented and have no
idea how you imagine I think this case is anything but bizarre.


I don't believe I actually said that, and I certainly didn't think it.

The main point was to simply explain that a clandestine affair is not
a "so what" triviality, as some seemed to be saying, but that in no
way means this case is 'normal' and, at this stage, I wouldn't be
terribly surprised to see Boris and Natasha show up with a dancing
bear and the whip lady.


Understood.

Let's see, the latest news is Petraeus apparently had the impression
he would stay as CIA director but, 'surprise', he's forced to resign
immediately after the election. Hmm, a cynic might wonder if the
President simply 'no longer needed' him after that, which begs the
question of what did he earlier need him for. 'Appropriate' testimony
about Benghazi, perhaps?


Nah. Not yet anyway. Other than terrifyingly bad judgement ( or even
really bad luck ) , I doubt there's much to the benghazi thing.

There's just no upside to messing that up.


I don't know what's going on but all indications are it's going to get
worse.


It's domino-ing as we speak.

--
Les Cargill