https - hopefully not too stupid a question

[Francis Davey]

2012/6/19 Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186 at zen.co.uk>:
>
>
> 'tis a bit, and sorry for that - it relates to an earlier post or three
> where I got a bit frustrated trying to explain to you that looking at
> traffic - any traffic - in any context - is not interception if you are
> looking to find traffic data.

Thanks, though I think you were pretty clear and what you said made
perfect sense. I thought I'd made it clear that I accepted what you
said entirely. I am usually pretty good at listening to arguments and
taking them on board. As I said, I ended up being caught out by my own
attempt to make too find a distinction.

>
> If I had thought that you were actually a shill, I'd have said so - I never
> meant to make that actual accusation, and afaics I didn't (please?).
>
> I just thought that you should be treated as one, for the rest of today,
> mostly for your apparent willingness to follow the party line.
>
> If that went too far then I apologise.
>

Thanks. Apology accepted.

I was pretty careful not to even find out what the party line was. I
only looked at a part of the explanatory notes when people started
talking about them. Like you I much prefer not to have my mind
cluttered with what the government says they are doing with a law.
Maybe I should make a point of reading them through afterwards to make
sure I don't inadvertently toe the line.

I'm being kept awake for other reasons - I hope you have a good night.

-- 
Francis Davey