Re: Dishonest Forks? | Was - Re: [Namedroppers-honest] Brian Smith asks: ?Who is Dean Anderson?

--On Friday, March 12, 2010 12:10 PM -0500 Dean Anderson <[email protected]> 
wrote:



>
> Well, if you take what they say:
>
>   * Jeff King invented and wrote the patch (to "protect" against
>     birthday attacks)  all by himself. King didn't collaborate with
>     anyone else.  According to King, Kevin Day invented this
>     independently.
>   * Kevin Day just wrote a paper about closing the "birthday attack
>     window"  with some other folks at GaTech, and posted King's patch
>     online--somehow independently without collaborating with King. And
>     did /nothing/ else.  §omehow, Day did all this without collaborating
>     with anyone else, certainly not Kaminsky.
>   * Dan Kaminsky had nothing whatsoever to do with the patch or its
>     design and invention. Except that he invented the spoofing of
>     NXdomain and bad glue.  Kaminsky invented the idea of the birthday
>     attack protection, but King didn't get it from Kaminsky. Day says he
>     didn't collaborate with Kaminsky.
>   * No one has any idea why "Mark Johnson" is anonymously distributing
>     the patched server.
>
> They expect us to believe that all three divided up the main parts of
> the work:  Birthday Protection (each independently), Code (King), Paper
> (Day), evangelism (Kaminsky), and didn't collaborate.

Scams by multiple people involve collaboration, therefore collaboration is 
a scam!  Collaboration involves multiple people sharing information 
together, therefore information sharing is collaboration, and since 
collaborating is a scam, information sharing is a scam!  Post hoc ergo 
propter hoc!  Cabals  and cartels are groups of people, and since 
collaboration requires a group of people, and collboration as we already 
established is a scam, groups of people are a scam!  Post hoc ergo propter 
hoc!  I think I finally understand you Dean.  Hopefully this helps 
enlighten everyone else too!

You finally admit that you misunderstand and misapplied the math involved 
earlier, yet you still hold onto your false assumptions.  You have no clue 
how the math works correctly and have made quite a few very bad deductions 
from that.  Since your math was so wrong, couldn't it be your conclusions 
are also wrong?