Re: [Debconf-discuss] list of valid documents for KSPs
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 28 May 2006, Thomas Bushnell verbalised:
>> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
>>> I see you have never been in a large key signing party. There is a
>>> certain expectation of trust, since no one can actrually detect
>>> delibrate forgeries.
>> Except that there was nothing forged about Martin's ID card, as it
>> has been reported. It was exactly what it claimed to be, nothing
>> more and nothing less.
>>> If people start bringing in forged documents, no amount of caution
>>> on part of laypeople like most software developers is proof against
>>> such deception. If such deception is accepted behaviour, we may as
>>> well throw out thetrust metric, and let /. upload packages into
>> This may be true, except that *the document was not forged*.
> So you continue to claim. And since you make statements like
> this with no discernible means of you having verified them, I do not
> see how discussion with you has any value whatsoever -- you'll make
> any statements to back your position, whether or not you know them to
> be true.
It is as if you don't bother to read what you are replying to.
Notice I said "as it has been reported."
So help me out here: are you claiming that Martin's card was *not* a
genuine credential from the Transnational Republic? If so, do you
have any evidence for that? You seem to be upset at Martin, or at the
people who signed his key, but I can't tell what *exactly* is the
basis for the anger.
You had been saying that Martin presented a forged credential. But
nothing that has been reported about the incident supports that
conclusion. To say that his credential was forged, in the absence of
any evidence to the contrary, is strange; why do you think his
credential is doubtful? Why do you not doubt *every* credential?
And if you say that you *do* doubt every credential, thinking now that
any of them might be forged, what about *this* incident provoked you
to that doubt, since nothing suggests that *this* incident has
anything to do with a forged credential?
In other words, it is you who injected talk of "forgery", and I'm
wondering where that came from, since it manifestly did not come from
Martin, or from anyone else.