Headline: Petraeus Resigns
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food. |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
Jim Thompson wrote:
Headline: Petraeus Resigns It's a little surreal to see how the allegation of an affair is normally handled when the guilty party doesn't get politicized defense. -- Reply in group, but if emailing add one more zero, and remove the last word. |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
Jim Thompson wrote:
Headline: Petraeus Resigns ...Jim Thompson Turns out G.I. Joe was not anatomically correct. -- Les Cargill |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote: Headline: Petraeus Resigns It's a little surreal to see how the allegation of an affair is normally handled when the guilty party doesn't get politicized defense. Past a certain point in the security clearance hierarchy, an affair is as good as a resignation. -- Les Cargill |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
Les Cargill wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: Headline: Petraeus Resigns ...Jim Thompson Turns out G.I. Joe was not anatomically correct. Why would even care to know? |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: Headline: Petraeus Resigns ...Jim Thompson Turns out G.I. Joe was not anatomically correct. Why would even care to know? I don't know. I didn't start the thread. Read it again until it's funny; there is something deeply humorous about Petraeus being forced to resign on grounds of virility. The Sovs always made up an "illness" story. We use... something else. -- Les Cargill |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
Les Cargill wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: Headline: Petraeus Resigns It's a little surreal to see how the allegation of an affair is normally handled when the guilty party doesn't get politicized defense. Past a certain point in the security clearance hierarchy, an affair is as good as a resignation. Of course, but this is the way these things are normally handled. The case of Herman Cain was handled "normally" too. He asked a girl if she wanted to go to a hotel. Now if he had sent a state trooper to aquisition her and take her to the hotel room and asked her to "kiss it", and if he was now President Elect, I wouldn't call that normal. But the long course of events seems surreal when people act with such astounding hypocrisy as if it's all ok. -- Reply in group, but if emailing add one more zero, and remove the last word. |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: Tom Del Rosso wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: Headline: Petraeus Resigns It's a little surreal to see how the allegation of an affair is normally handled when the guilty party doesn't get politicized defense. Past a certain point in the security clearance hierarchy, an affair is as good as a resignation. Of course, but this is the way these things are normally handled. The case of Herman Cain was handled "normally" too. He asked a girl if she wanted to go to a hotel. Now if he had sent a state trooper to aquisition her and take her to the hotel room and asked her to "kiss it", and if he was now President Elect, I wouldn't call that normal. But the long course of events seems surreal when people act with such astounding hypocrisy as if it's all ok. The only way I can stand the noise at all is to realize that it *is* surreal to begin with, that all the framing and making-into-narrative distorts things so badly that what's left is nothing. I dunno - that works for me. -- Les Cargill |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
On 2012-11-10, Les Cargill wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote: Les Cargill wrote: Tom Del Rosso wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: Headline: Petraeus Resigns It's a little surreal to see how the allegation of an affair is normally handled when the guilty party doesn't get politicized defense. Past a certain point in the security clearance hierarchy, an affair is as good as a resignation. Of course, but this is the way these things are normally handled. The case of Herman Cain was handled "normally" too. He asked a girl if she wanted to go to a hotel. Now if he had sent a state trooper to aquisition her and take her to the hotel room and asked her to "kiss it", and if he was now President Elect, I wouldn't call that normal. But the long course of events seems surreal when people act with such astounding hypocrisy as if it's all ok. The only way I can stand the noise at all is to realize that it *is* surreal to begin with, that all the framing and making-into-narrative distorts things so badly that what's left is nothing. what if the woman is a spy? -- š‚šƒ 100% natural --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
On 11/11/2012 11:14, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2012-11-10, Les Cargill wrote: Tom Del Rosso wrote: Les Cargill wrote: Tom Del Rosso wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: Headline: Petraeus Resigns It's a little surreal to see how the allegation of an affair is normally handled when the guilty party doesn't get politicized defense. Past a certain point in the security clearance hierarchy, an affair is as good as a resignation. Of course, but this is the way these things are normally handled. The case of Herman Cain was handled "normally" too. He asked a girl if she wanted to go to a hotel. Now if he had sent a state trooper to aquisition her and take her to the hotel room and asked her to "kiss it", and if he was now President Elect, I wouldn't call that normal. But the long course of events seems surreal when people act with such astounding hypocrisy as if it's all ok. The only way I can stand the noise at all is to realize that it *is* surreal to begin with, that all the framing and making-into-narrative distorts things so badly that what's left is nothing. what if the woman is a spy? Or was two timing with a Russian spy eg. Christine Keeler in the Profumo Affair. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
flipper wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:43:45 -0600, Les Cargill wrote: Michael A. Terrell wrote: Les Cargill wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: Headline: Petraeus Resigns ...Jim Thompson Turns out G.I. Joe was not anatomically correct. Why would even care to know? I don't know. I didn't start the thread. Read it again until it's funny; there is something deeply humorous about Petraeus being forced to resign on grounds of virility. It might be 'humorous' if that were the reason but the reasons were because of exceedingly bad judgment and compromised security, both of which extend far beyond just the one man. I suppose there is actual training materials and reams of regulation on exactly what can transpire before it's a security breach? To wit, how are you going to explain to the rank and file that taking up with whatever bimbo who bats an eye is a potential security compromise if you wink and nod at the man with more security information than anyone else exercising similar 'judgment'? We are already neck deep in swampy non-concepts... "Judgement". The Sovs always made up an "illness" story. We use... something else. That because the Soviets had to "make up" something since, in their system, the 'privileged' were allowed whatever they wanted. No, because absolutely nothing was ever issued as information that *wasn't* made up, really :) -- Les Cargill |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
Les Cargill wrote:
flipper wrote: On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:43:45 -0600, Les Cargill wrote: Michael A. Terrell wrote: Les Cargill wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: Headline: Petraeus Resigns ...Jim Thompson Turns out G.I. Joe was not anatomically correct. Why would even care to know? I don't know. I didn't start the thread. Read it again until it's funny; there is something deeply humorous about Petraeus being forced to resign on grounds of virility. It might be 'humorous' if that were the reason but the reasons were because of exceedingly bad judgment and compromised security, both of which extend far beyond just the one man. I suppose there is actual training materials and reams of regulation on exactly what can transpire before it's a security breach? To wit, how are you going to explain to the rank and file that taking up with whatever bimbo who bats an eye is a potential security compromise if you wink and nod at the man with more security information than anyone else exercising similar 'judgment'? We are already neck deep in swampy non-concepts... "Judgement". The Sovs always made up an "illness" story. We use... something else. That because the Soviets had to "make up" something since, in their system, the 'privileged' were allowed whatever they wanted. No, because absolutely nothing was ever issued as information that *wasn't* made up, really :) -- Les Cargill I don't know what the big fuss is all about, he got his PeePee wet, what's wrong with that? Jamie |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
flipper wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:29:43 -0600, Les Cargill wrote: flipper wrote: On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:43:45 -0600, Les Cargill wrote: Michael A. Terrell wrote: Les Cargill wrote: Jim Thompson wrote: Headline: Petraeus Resigns ...Jim Thompson Turns out G.I. Joe was not anatomically correct. Why would even care to know? I don't know. I didn't start the thread. Read it again until it's funny; there is something deeply humorous about Petraeus being forced to resign on grounds of virility. It might be 'humorous' if that were the reason but the reasons were because of exceedingly bad judgment and compromised security, both of which extend far beyond just the one man. I suppose there is actual training materials and reams of regulation on exactly what can transpire before it's a security breach? I didn't say breach and your query doesn't really matter because anyone who doesn't know that clandestine affairs compromise security also doesn't have enough brains for the job. My bad on the use of the word breach, then. Transgression, violation, infraction... whatever it is. Flag on the play. 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. I know that a lot of the things I read on computer security sound like folklore trying to be dressed up as standards. To wit, how are you going to explain to the rank and file that taking up with whatever bimbo who bats an eye is a potential security compromise if you wink and nod at the man with more security information than anyone else exercising similar 'judgment'? We are already neck deep in swampy non-concepts... "Judgement". If you lack a 'non swampy' concept of judgment then you should definitely stay out of positions requiring it. It's just a really fuzzy concept. And as with all fuzzy concepts, it's possible to have a really clear internal picture of it. The Sovs always made up an "illness" story. We use... something else. That because the Soviets had to "make up" something since, in their system, the 'privileged' were allowed whatever they wanted. No, because absolutely nothing was ever issued as information that *wasn't* made up, really :) Even if that wild absolute were accurate it would merely extend the scope of what I said, not contradict the truth of it. Well, I did add a smiley. People 'make up' things to 'sound better' than reality (the President's typical political speech babble being a prime example) Of course. and implicit in the goal is that the 'made up thing' should sound good. To wit, the excuse of 'illness' meets that criteria but an extramarital affair would not because, in the Soviet system, it would be akin to accusing the person of having a nice house. It's just another expected 'perk' of the 'privileged class' and, so, constitutes a "so what?" or, even worse, "then what about yours?" I did not mean to imply that it was made up. The original salient point was the Soviets "made up" something whereas the Patraeus affair is not "made up." -- Les Cargill |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
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 -- Les Cargill |
Headline: Petraeus Resigns
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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter