[cryptome] Re: SAGA was: Re: Re: Hoax? Please disregard my prior email submission

  • From: Todd Judge <toddbob@xxxxxxx>
  • To: "cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 00:38:09 +0900

Got it (I concisely responded).

> On Jul 6, 2014, at 11:47 PM, doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi Todd,
> You carry on posting and keep working on it, Todd.  I understand you and the 
> more you practice the more you will control your writing and postings.  Try 
> reading some of John Young's       correspondence, particularly his exchanges 
> with journalists.  There you will learn how to be more concise and pack a lot 
> more meaning into a lot less words...He  has left me open-mouthed at times, 
> and that is no mean feat... ;-)         And as for the journalists...well, so 
> much for the 4th estate...
> ATB
> Dougie.
> 
>> On 05/07/14 13:42, Todd Judge wrote:
>>> Hi Doug,
>>> Thank you very much for the kind and honest reply. 
>>> A few lint-stuffed additions and questionably related babble:  
>> 
>>> 1. "do date" = "due date"
>>> My bad. 
>>> 2.  In a mid 1960s
>>> episode of "Rocky & Bullwinkle", R & B were walking on the campus of 
>>> Whatsamata U. and asked a "hippie-looking" kid where everybody was going.  
>>> He answered, "We're going to the Student Union to protest Norman Mailer!"
>>> 
>>> I will never ever forget that line. I was aware enough then to laugh, and 
>>> still laugh when it crawls back into mind. 
>>> 
>>> 3.  And, for pure rambling fluff in closing, here is how I've become 
>>> passionate about the value of stewardship of citizen privacy and rI learned 
>>> to write FORTRAN in 7th grade in 1967 on an IBM 360. It was located at a 
>>> bio research facility. Data comm and physiological modeling became a hobby 
>>> as fun as hunting, fishing and trapping.  And been into and applying it 
>>> ever since.  Kinda nerd-giggly.  And made a living from it. 
>>> 
>>> Still I'm not "a good programmer" by good programmer's standards, as far as 
>>> I'm concerned. But I learned and love the challenge to build the most 
>>> efficient (tightest security, most efficient performance-wise (and always 
>>> cheapest by far) result) systems design and implementation.  How is simple. 
>>> I always brought/bring in help who are much smarter than me. 
>>> 
>>> Honestly, the approach has never saved LESS than $2MIL on medium scale 
>>> projects, over the Anderson's, Toilet and Douche, etcetera, bidders who 
>>> slithered in through Executive wine and dine attempts to derail valid 
>>> protests from our internal division and proven contractors.  I've kicked 
>>> them out the door or resigned, first. And always I'm lucky to have been 
>>> hired back as soon as their merit/performance was obvious.  
>>> 
>>> When I teach my counterparts that "resigning" is a realistic option and 
>>> always works out in the end, it's always received like its the first time 
>>> they've heard or considered it. In japan and in the US. I've made more 
>>> mistakes than everyone I've met combined. But I try not to make the same 
>>> ones twice. I'm not smart by any measure. Just stubborn. 
>>>  I've been very lucky. But uncompromising focus on 
>>> user/patient/citizen/needy-consumer privacy, cost containment, starting 
>>> with prototypes & results analysis and Plan B from inception, before all 
>>> else, has let me sleep at night.  
>>> 
>>> And for the life of me I don't know how the greedy cronies, NSA and the 
>>> rest, can sleep at all.  Their intent is and always has been truly 
>>> misguided and harmful to all. 
>>> 
>>> I seen the price of incompetence, needless financial drain, and politicized 
>>> sales fairytales early on. They always, w/out exception, result in 
>>> domino-effect burdens on trusting consumers & taxpayers. They're one in the 
>>> same, and they always suffer and own the resulting burden. 
>>> 
>>> Thank you very much, yet again for your sincerity. I find myself far too 
>>> verbose in my posts here.  Sorry. I need to really work on that!
>>> Todd
>>> 
>>> On Jul 5, 2014, at 5:32 AM, doug <douglasrankine2001@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Todd,
>>> There is no need to apologise, as far as I am concerned, ...
> 

Other related posts: