Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

Mrs Ken Ehrett wrote:

:On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:31:05 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:
:
:Mrs Ken Ehrett wrote in
:
:
: On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:44:33 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
: wrote:
:
:Mrs Ken Ehrett wrote in
m:
:
: On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 14:56:32 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
: wrote:
:
:Mrs Ken Ehrett wrote in
:news:c5qt92te6qlstsq6nngj1jff8a099iok0a@4ax. com:
:
: On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 19:03:14 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
: wrote:
:
:Mrs Ken Ehrett wrote in
:news:1lmn92hf95nhp5pro2kcigj5k6bfkmt0g4@4a x.com:
:
: On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 06:35:19 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
: wrote:
:
:Mrs Ken Ehrett wrote in
:newsmjn92p0blq1detbnp0pid9dtkhoi1j5hj@ 4ax.com:
:
: On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 04:05:11 GMT, Fred J. McCall
: wrote:
:
wrote:
:
::Whereas cowards and pussies toss out insults and then run and
::hide behind a kill filter.
:
:No, cowards and pussies hide on Usenet behind false names.
:
: So who are you accusing of using a false name? Scott Hedrick?
: Eric Chomko? Or is it you?
:
:Umm... I think he's referring to "ninety7gt". But what do I
:know; I only read his post.
:
: Well if that is the case, Sarah Czepiel is the name on my
: drivers license and is my email address with
: Cox Cable.
:
:And exactly how was he supposed to know that "ninety7gt" was Sarah
:Czepiel's email address before you said so? Or, for that matter,
:that Sarah Czepiel and Mrs. Ken Ehrett are the same person? It's
:not that he's paranoid or conspiracy-mongering, nor that you're
:nym- shifting,
:
: He always comments " No, cowards and pussies hide on Usenet
: behind false names. " to every one using a nym on usenet? If
: that's not paranoid what is it?
:
:If during years of using Usenet, most people using nyms turn out to
:be cowards and pussies, then it's a useful generalization, not
:paranoia.
:
:That may be somewhat unfair to the minority using nyms who happen
:not to be cowards and pussies, but c'est la vie.
:
: Nym? is an email addy.
:
:It's an email addy as long as it's accompanied by a name. For example,
:your posts from "Mrs Ken Ehrett" had a "From:" header like this:
:
:From: Mrs Ken Ehrett
:
:That indicates that when you set up your news client for this account,
:you not only used " as the email address but you also
:set up "Mrs Ken Ehrett" as the name associated with that email
:address.
:
:But in this case when you posted from the other address the From:
:header was:
:
:From:
:
:This indicates that you did not set up the account properly, and did
:not associate "Sarah Czepiel" with ". Often this is
:done with the intent to nym-shift. In your case, I think we can safely
:write this off to utter incompetence on your part. There was no intent
:to nym- shift.
:
: I don't know how to say this any more clearly: I've already said
: this is not my account.
:
:Well, the facts are clear from the posting record, quoted above.
:
:Someone calling herself "Mrs Ken Ehrett " wrote this:
:
:"Well if that is the case, Sarah Czepiel is the name on my drivers
:license and is my email address with Cox Cable."
:
:and now, someone calling herself "Mrs Ken Ehrett " wrote
:this:
:
:"I don't know how to say this any more clearly: I've already said this
:is not my account."
:
:So, either it is your account or it is not your account.
:
:You either snipped this part or chose to ignore it.
:
:"Mrs. Ken Ehrett is my married name because.....wait for it conspiracy
eople.....I'm married to a guy named Ken Ehrett. We share a
:computer and Agent is set up to default to his name and email addy.
:For ease I simply add a "Mrs" tag when I post. Works for me and it
:works for Ken. "

And so you use multiple accounts, one of which isn't yours.

:If it is, someone calling herself "Mrs Ken Ehrett " is lying.
:Either that person is you, or it is someone posing as you. If it is the
:former, you have a serious issue with your shrink; if the latter, a
:serious issue with your ISP. If it is not you, you still have a serious
:issue with your ISP. I suggest you work it out.
:
:See above. Repeat slooooowly : ' It is not my account. '

Say it as often as you like. It doesn't change the facts on the
ground.

: Those so accusing others of nefarious intentions often get labeled
: paranoid or a kook, but c'est la vie.
:
:I do not accuse you of nefarious intentions. I do accuse you of Usenet
:incompetence, and the evidence so far supports my accusation.
:
: Actually you couldn't be farther off the beam. Maybe you should
: analyze why *you've* found this so compelling a discussion.
:
:I originally found it compelling as an example of how two otherwise
:rational people (you and Fred) could come to such diametrically opposed
:conclusions about one another based on misunderstandings. Not that Fred
:and I are friendly; we've got each other in our killfiles and if you
:search sci.space.shuttle about a year ago you'll see why. :-) But the
:more I follow this thread the more I must admit that you are acting
:fruity, despite your admittedly impressive knowledge of US civil
:intelligence organization. Or perhaps because of. :-)
:
:[ I must have the patience of a saint..... ]

Wow, no ego there!

snicker

:Fred J McCall is low on knowledge and high on minutia. His last
:comment to me before this discussion was to tell me I'd misspelt
:Valerie Plame's last name.

So, while "low on knowledge", I was actually way ahead of you (since
you were consistently getting it wrong)?

:I can't be bothered with him or his ad
:hominem attacks, but three cheers because he's finally managed to
:successfully turn this conversation into silly nonsense.

This seems, from what I can see, a pretty good description of any
conversation involving you - silly nonsense.

:And with that I bid you adieu. I'm finished attempting to explain
:this any further.

Would that it were so, but I've little doubt you'll manage to keep
bleating.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
The legal yardstick here appears to be what the public could observe, so
you *might* be able to make a case for visible-light satellite photos
being illegal, if their resolution is higher than what a passenger in a
(legally-flown) aircraft could see, *and* the areas photographed are not
visible to the public from the ground. I wouldn't bet a lot of money on
it, but it's not out of the question.

So, does this change if it's observed from a Virgin spaceflight?