WHAT DO WE KNOW?

[Zombie]

6 instances of "... does not a cliffhanger make" have been posted on the forum.

And every single one trumpeted by that shady quadruped.

Why am I not surprised?

Edited September 27, 2011 by Zombie

[C James]

I am having a problem with, Quotes," in using this new system.

 

It used to be I could paste something, highlight it, click the Quote button on the Tool-bar and the highlighted text would appear as a boxed unattributed quote in the posting. Now if I do it, the darn thing disappears.

 

Any assistance, advice or suggestions would be appreciated

 

Thanking you in advance.

 

Marty

 

Hrmmm,

 

I am having a problem with, Quotes," in using this new system.

It works for me (highlight the text then hit the quote button above). Hrmmm..

 

We've had a software upgrade, and there are often bugs. For now, if it still won't work,

try like Zombie said, type in the tags yourself.

It looks like this;

[quote] quoted text [/quote]

 

I cannot say for sure and in all honesty, I am too lazy to spend the time doing the research to refute your statements' use of the word "often." Based on my recollection of previous posts, I think i can say with some degree of certainty, the number of readers defending your claim of never using Cliffhangers is vastly unnumbered by those readers, who rightfully proclaim you are the, King of Cliffhangers.

 

Using this maxim to guide me in responding to your post, "If such observations were indeed posted in this Forum, you were most likely the one to have done so."

 

Why do you always suspect me???

 

6 instances of "... does not a cliffhanger make" have been posted on the forum.

And every single one trumpeted by that shady quadruped.

Why am I not surprised?

 

Only six? But still, six is quite a few. Just goes to show that a hitman (or a highly unstable bomb) does not a cliffhanger make.

 

And ahha! I see that you, Zombie, used the phrase yourself, so that makes seven or eight, minimum, with at least one by you.

[Zombie]

Digital cellular takes far more to intercept: unless you have the algorithm, you can't use it. It can be done, but it takes a lot of tech and expertise. Otherwise, what you hear sounds very much like a fax machine.

 

OK, so interception without physical access to Trev's phone is currently not viable for Basingstoke, although security agencies have been able to do this since at least 2005 so it's only a matter of time (see: http://www.ft.com/in...000e2511c8.html)

 

BUT here's a scary vid for all you folks who EVER allow your mobile / cell phone to be separated from your sticky fingers for more than a couple of minutes when someone else can get at it:

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCyKcoDaofg

 

You'll need to copy+paste into your browser because the full address creates an embedded video which Youtube does not allow on this site.

 

Take a look at the number of views - over 5m sets of underwear will have had to be laundered because of this vid

Edited September 27, 2011 by Zombie

[Zombie]

Deleted

Edited September 27, 2011 by Zombie

[C James]

 

OK, so interception without physical access to Trev's phone is currently not viable for Basingstoke, although security agencies have been able to do this since at least 2005 so it's only a matter of time (see: http://www.ft.com/in...000e2511c8.html)

 

BUT here's a scary vid for all you folks who EVER allow your mobile / cell phone to be separated from your sticky fingers for more than a couple of minutes when someone else can get at it:

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCyKcoDaofg

 

You'll need to copy+paste into your browser because the full address creates an embedded video which Youtube does not allow on this site.

 

Take a look at the number of views - over 5m sets of underwear will have had to be laundered because of this vid

 

I can't watch video on this system, but I'm guessing this deals with loading stuff onto a cell phone that can listen in on your calls, or track your movements, or listen in at anytime (whether the phone is in use or not). Or, all of the above and then some. It's pretty easy if you have access to the phone. It's not all that hard if you don't. Most modern phones are made to connect via USB connections for both charging and data. This is a VERY bad mix. You'd be amazed how many people avail themselves of free charging stations that connect via the phone's data port.

 

I also wonder how many people are aware of the online risks of some networking sites, such as facebook? Even when signed out, you can and often are still tracked.

 

Or the recent revelation that the GM Onstar system tracks your vehicle's every move even if you cancel your subscription? They say they no longer do, but only since being busted for it.

 

Or the recent revelation that Iphones were tracking their owners and storing the data, making copies every time you sync your device. (remember those free charging stations I mentioned?? They can get it with ease, as can anyone with access to your device or anything you sync it with).

 

I could go on and on; these kind of invasions are getting more and more common. They are primarily intended for marketing, which is bad enough, but they open the door to government abuse too. All that data your phones store about you is the reason Michigan police and others have taken to searching phones and copying all their data during traffic stops.