From: Nolan Lee Area: Public Key Encryption To: Ron Pritchett 26 Aug 94 06:09:42 Subject: Pres/Vice Pres UpdReq On Aug 21 10:39 94, Ron Pritchett of 1:376/74 wrote: RP> key William J Clinton (384/23BDC6F9 1980/01/01) RP> key Albert Gore (384/DE09D78D 1980/01/01) RP> notice the dates! Yeah, they must both have XT's. thanks, Nolan 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: jason carr Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jim Grubs 25 Aug 94 10:29:50 Subject: Double-Key ENCRYPTION UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Grubs wrote in a message to Jason Carr: > Anybody out there know enough about the source to check it out? JG> This is all paranoid nonsense. First, Phil has repeatedly JG> said to all who will listen that he was consulted in the I xposted Phil's comments about 2.6 to the conferences where there were doubters. I appreciate info. JG> release of 2.6 and approves it. Second, MIT itself is a JG> member of PKP and always has been. What does "a member of PKP" mean? jason ... "Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLlzVe0jhGzlN9lCZAQE0GQP/fol1oUNsLEr8xnf5weXWbsA9GRHE0z0x hUUKZtnOMXXSKVUziOeGA/M1aaOvEN3/dYGhem8k1mtWKmsv/P8PtkCEFpMQ2LY/ kZ74tU+64x2F2fkvxPTDZrahVt3qfW7vpLOVvabEqnCyiMbJPd7/kFVPiZvZPhQ+ +qk8QUfh/M8= =rQSa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ...Key fingerprint = 60 97 B2 AE 7D 90 11 2F 05 1C 35 98 E9 B9 83 61 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Jason Carr Area: Public Key Encryption To: Mike Lenker 25 Aug 94 17:49:02 Subject: Re: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq -=> Quoting Mike Lenker to Jason Carr <=- JC> If it were that black/white. The ECPA may come into play where the JC> poster has a reasonable expectation of privacy. ML> Just in case recent comments from lawyers are of interest, here's what ML> a couple of them said in public at ONE BBSCON in Atlanta (from which I ML> just returned), as closely as I can remember: Thanks for typing this in... ML> (The setting is a panel discussion under the title "Freedom and ML> Privacy Issues Online") ML> Lance Rose: Some Fido sysops have taken to posting a prominent notice ML> on their systems to the effect that nothing on the system is private, ML> and the sysop reserves the right to read all mail. This notice Hmmm, I think their mistake is saying that the sysop reads the mail, or reserves the right to do so. ML> actually INCREASES the Sysop's potential liability, and DECREASES the ML> liability of the government, if the government were to seize the ML> system. For example, it has been established that private mail systems ML> may only be invaded with a subpoena, and then only the mail of named ML> individuals can be intercepted. With that notice in place, the ML> government agent can just seize the system, and be protected against ML> liability by saying, 'Look, it says right here that nothing in this box ML> is private'. Mmmm, good point. But, think that there's an important semantic diff between "private mail systems" and, say, 'private systems that have mail." Is the system or the mail private? ML> Mike Godwin: No. No. No! That's WRONG! They are liable if they ML> violate their users' privacy, and not if they honor that privacy. If Right, they should not read PVT mail, but should, imo, let them know that PVT != Private. Hey, I'd sure like to see any more stuff like this that you'd like to post. Let me know if more is forthcoming. jason 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: James P.caldwell Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jim Grubs 26 Aug 94 18:22:00 Subject: Phil's Views UpdReq -=> Jim Grubs hollered to All about Phil's views <=- JG> Philip Zimmermann sent this out to cypherpunks, and asked me to JG> forward it to the rest of the world, as he has lousy news service. JG> Obviously, you can check the signature to make sure I didn't just make JG> it up. Apparently there's been a lot of weird rumours flying about. JG> To: All Users of PGP JG> From: Philip Zimmermann, creator of PGP JG> Re: Misconceptions about PGP 2.6 from MIT JG> Date: 18 Aug 94 Hey Phil! Didn't a bunch of Feds just haul you butt in on criminal charges? By spouting this statement are YOU caving into undue pressure by government? See Ya! ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Scott Mills Area: Public Key Encryption To: Zorch Frezberg 25 Aug 94 06:12:10 Subject: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Tuesday August 23 1994, Zorch Frezberg writes to Scott Mills: ZF> In a msg on , Scott Mills of 1:265/119 writes: SM>> Not true Shawn. There is a prominent talk show host sydicated in SM>> over a hundred markets who openly states that even though he SM>> has 9 felony convictions and can't possess a firearm his SM>> wife owns several dozen. Some of which she keeps on his side SM>> of the bed. Also you can be given that right back if you SM>> talk the right politicians into it. Same with the right to SM>> vote I believe. Of course most of us don't have the kind of SM>> connections it would take to get them back. ZF> Partially correct. ZF> If the guns are registered in _her_ name, some states will allow it. ZF> However, most courts would recognize any possession within 'arm's reach' ZF> is a violation, depending on the jurisdiction. Well, obviously both Maryland and Arizona allow it. He shoots regularly with at a local range in Maryland and on his property in Arizona. Most guns don't have to be registered in civilized states anyways(none of mine are). ZF> You can be given the 'right to bear arms' back _if_ you are able to gain a ZF> pardon; it will _NOT_ restore Federal Firearms License, as the ATF won't ZF> give it back. A pardon is generally a four step process, taking upwards ZF> of seven years to achieve. You can actually get your right to vote ZF> back before you can get a firearm legally. ZF> No connections, no bribes...just a long and tedious process. Yes, connections are needed and the bribes are called legal fees. As Mr. Liddy spends much of his air time in the hundred plus cities he broadcasts to stating how incompetent the BATF is it is doubtful he could convince them. ZF> The same officer also speaks of the dreaded "Modem Virus", a virus which ZF> activates -=*> during <*=- a file transfer...a virus that engineers for ZF> modem manufacturers state is totally impossible. ZF> So, because you run into one person who claims to get away with something, ZF> don't expect that to happen in another jurisdiction, let alone your ZF> own...it all depends on how stupid, ignorant, efficent, or well-trained ZF> the law enforcement agency is in your area... ZF> And no, I haven't gotten my equipment back yet; it's been almost a year. At last we drift almost back on topic. Have you been charged with anything yet? Or are they still just talking about what you could be charged with? Either way I wouldn't count on ever seeing your equipment back in working condition. Scott New Intel opcode #008 DIE: Delete instruction entry Scott Mills 1024/26CD5D03 PGP fingerprint = 13 D6 FF 43 53 3D 54 7B 94 D0 6B F4 24 13 E5 BD sm@f119.n265.z1.fidonet.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6a iQCVAgUBLlxG0CP6qSQmzV0DAQGgjAQAzXcD20sIaOfB24wSTDTnCbT7Svh2rw3y VyCHwXFYYDPLFJYtTh6a+ekbwC8vjoSvvWV16GlBovtzE+UssTvFYRJpadFOJwrs KrZy2nV5jtihWhiF5fQm8i9ZqvgqiwfJkOt5YiMucjG+H/Pu5JyCMz5LKSBIXhek +W4yvGN5xDU= =PWNo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Scott Mills Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jason Carr 26 Aug 94 15:11:40 Subject: Double-Key ENCRYPTION UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Wednesday August 24 1994, Jason Carr writes to Scott Mills: SM>> not like keys over 1k in size. I keep the 2.6u version around for SM>> proccessing keys and any out of zone one mail. JC> Ahh, I see. Do you know if 2.6a fixes the choking on large keys? Nope, still doesn't like them. I'm keeping 2.6ui around just to process keys if nothing else. Scott Bad Command, bad, bad command. Sit, stay, staaaay! Scott Mills 1024/26CD5D03 PGP fingerprint = 13 D6 FF 43 53 3D 54 7B 94 D0 6B F4 24 13 E5 BD sm@f119.n265.z1.fidonet.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6a iQCVAgUBLl4T/SP6qSQmzV0DAQFZ5AQAipMXWUFkaR16RYSD7OPcrmII8Z4fpwus sAC0YfT+/Usr56iwfA/DaEGQ3GovJz2/la1qO4+WJrew22rty3tgLnrYAuzZprls 2gUg2cPaViZUeaaWC9xUJx8oeCP0xKI2xgNkY/ihSxNG0RcnaAptfiC6UiNlNzgq O+NLhqYryt8= =bRBm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Scott Mills Area: Public Key Encryption To: Richard Walker 26 Aug 94 15:12:44 Subject: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq Monday August 22 1994, Richard Walker writes to Scott Mills: SM>>>> But to find that encrypted traffic the sysops must me reading all SM>>>> the "private" net mail that goes through their systems. I could have SM>>>> SM>>> sworn that was against the law. BS>>> What law would that be violating? SM>> The Electronic Communications Privacy Act. I believe it makes reading SM>> private mail not addressed to you a crime. RW> Now, I understand! You actually think some person has to read a message RW> in order for a signed message to be detected and bounced? You are *dead* RW> wrong. I could, in ten minutes write and compile a program that would RW> stop all PGP signed/encrypted netmail and bounce it back to the sender. Then you are still reading the contents. Maybe not all but some of the message. If I set up my system to bounce all messages with the string "unprotect" in a message I would still be reading and censoring the traffic. If you are going to check all traffic you also take responsibility for everything going through your system. Scott Holodeck computer...end Clinton administration program. Scott Mills 1024/26CD5D03 PGP fingerprint = 13 D6 FF 43 53 3D 54 7B 94 D0 6B F4 24 13 E5 BD sm@f119.n265.z1.fidonet.org --- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Ted Rolle Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 26 Aug 94 20:02:00 Subject: PGP gate? UpdReq ============================================================================= * Forwarded by Ted Rolle (1:105/36) * Area : NETMAIL001 (GEcho Netmail) * From : xxxxx xxxxxxx, zone:net.node Thursday August 25 1994 17:02) * To : Ted Rolle * Subj : PGP gate? ============================================================================= I have a friend on the Internet who would like to try out pgp in messages. However, my query to xxxxx xxxx met a very cool and polite, "No," when I asked him if he allowed encryption through the gate. Is there a UFgate who might be willing to pass encrypted messages if he were asked? TTYL xxxxx ============================================================================= Hello All! Any relief in sight? Ted 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Jim Cannell Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 26 Aug 94 06:11:16 Subject: Memory UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- My keyring has gotten too big. PGP is now complaining about adding more keys. I get an out of memory message, and the keys do not get added. This happens somewhere around 5000 keys. The only way around this that I see is to modify PGP to use extended memory. 640k is just not enough. Has anyone modified PGP to do so? This doesn't look like a very tough problem. It's just that I would rather put my time into something else. Thanks for any help. Jim - International SecureMail Hub (ISMH) PGP key 1024/B7822B3D fingerprint = 0F F4 79 06 3B 33 99 D1 07 36 66 66 80 85 76 B3 Protect your right to privacy. Say no to GAK. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLl3rfCWTIMO3gis9AQHSSQP+KYW1E1UuHZwtltGXqFh4s7Fr4c9P6Rui 0zoRuTdM4TRbPKLHp15EZKjS+EyNea+avamo4LgT9SEVJVXfv8qSHrcVnYblcCrC /erHHoB082YuzwdPyANa2G06zpQDlpwtqV23cyl8fxq9g5YyjP/G7k2yIU6GZe12 K6t1xU5czfE= =shC3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Christopher Baker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Dave Hodgins 25 Aug 94 16:22:16 Subject: Re: PGP26A is out UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 24 Aug 94, Dave Hodgins was quoted as saying: DH> came from. Don't assume everyone reading this echo is running DH> their own node. i'd speak to my Sysop if i were you about providing some pedigrees on his/her files areas then. [grin] DH> CB> source was hatched. PGP26ASR.ZIP. DH> Hasn't arrived here. maybe the system you are using hasn't polled for their files lately. DH> CB> please pay attention if you want to keep up. DH> Well EXCUSE ME! I do read this echo. I don't remember seeing DH> any mention, of a pgp26a version being made available. it was posted twice. better ask your Sysop about his/her Echomail links while you're at it. DH> this, on the internet, since when, did this echo become the DH> exclusive provider of information related to PGP. it is the exclusive provider of information for files hatched into its companion file distribution area. PUBKEYZ1 was the only place this was hatched unless someone else is gating it elsewhere. DH> Perhaps you should review the doc files for pgp. In particular, pay DH> attention to the section on "Viruses and Trojan Horses". When I DH> find a version of PGP, which is signed only by a key I have no DH> reason to trust, I get suspicious. I think asking here, and on the DH> internet, was quite appropriate. it has nothing to do with the Internet. TTFN. Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6a Comment: PGP 2.6 is LEGAL in Zone 1! So USE it! [grin] iQCVAgUBLlz9bMsQPBL4miT5AQGCBgP/Vl7o4FEd6Ndxv4Sw0AQF/E8ld+yCaysO I5RFqEc0JgOeOJ+p92fcOuZnqOt8rRDhQ/it9Dmot2g6d5dzbBbu7zWLuEUo1qSZ jjMld0aNDjv/kyfuRxwxi/Z7Ui+GnaesEAOzqFbjUo8ENehCAnKvVNU4LdxQpCZV sPzvb04PD3M= =3pds -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Christopher Baker Area: Public Key Encryption To: Ryan Watson 25 Aug 94 16:27:44 Subject: Re: PGP for IBM. UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In a message dated: 24 Aug 94, Ryan Watson was quoted as saying: RW> Can someone tell me where to obtain the newest PGP for the IBM? I RW> have a point that needs a copy. freq PGP for the MIT release 2.6 for DOS. freq PGP26AB.ZIP for a recompile of MIT code that doesn't include the various bugs of 2.6. if you cannot file-request, call the BBS and download it at 407-383-1372. TTFN. Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6a Comment: PGP 2.6 is LEGAL in Zone 1! So USE it! [grin] iQCVAgUBLlz+tcsQPBL4miT5AQHIwgP+JNKm291Ozd2QKRh1CO5n2RN1VNy+yiaQ RLs93ZOmY0gE8rK2e/34VJNZuzmLu1LzJMmv3DOBE0lctm5X8qQIrZUAbZeWQL5a rGCwV52oXIgLRg4UzXw8jT5E9nLn5gBZsWh1FYbkQ+q89WPe1vZPAc58k+3+TFHV OS8isPQKOyA= =b8+u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Jim Grubs Area: Public Key Encryption To: gk pace 26 Aug 94 09:44:02 Subject: PGP26A UpdReq I'll forward your comments and see what he says. Sincerely, Jim Grubs 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Jim Grubs Area: Public Key Encryption To: gk pace 26 Aug 94 19:36:00 Subject: PGP26A UpdReq > I'll forward your comments and see what he says. > Sincerely, > Jim Grubs > From: bontchev@informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Vesselin Bontchev) > Message-Id: <9408261646.AA16336@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de> > Received: by fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (5.65+/FBIHH-1.32); > id AA16336; Fri, 26 Aug 94 18:46:08 +0200 > Subject: Re: PGP 2.6A > To: jgrubs@voxbox.norden1.com > Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 18:46:05 +0200 (MET DST) > In-Reply-To: from "Jim Grubs, W8GRT" > at Aug 26, 94 10:03:40 am >> JG> It is NOT an official version. The official version of MIT-PGP must >> JG> carry the detached signature of Jeff Schiller. If it is not there - >> JG> the version is bogus. >> >> The README.26a file states that it is not an official release, rather a >> bug-fix pending an official release. > I am sorry, but I do not trust what the documentation says, because it > is so easy to alter it. I would trust only a trustworthy signature, > e.g., from Phil Zimmermann, Jeff Schiller, or some of the other known > PGP developers. >> I'm using it... since it works great with OS2 and I've found nothing wron > g >> with it. The Rebel may not be an "Official Releaser", but he/she isn't >> making that claim... What he/she HAS done is issue DOS and OS2 executable >> versions which seem to work much better than the DOS version issued previou > sly >> from MIT. > I am sorry, but I refuse to trust his/her signature. When MIT makes an > official release, signed by Jeff Schiller - *then* I'll trust it. > Regards, > Vesselin > -- > Vesselin Vladimirov Bontchev Virus Test Center, University of > Hamburg > Tel.:+49-40-54715-224, Fax: +49-40-54715-226 Fachbereich Informatik > - AGN > < PGP 2.3 public key available on request. > Vogt-Koelln-Strasse 30, rm. > 107 C > e-mail: bontchev@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de 22527 Hamburg, > Germany 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: jason carr Area: Public Key Encryption To: Rich Veraa 26 Aug 94 10:36:38 Subject: Re: Net 106 still at it? UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Rich Veraa wrote in a message to Jason Carr: RV> Not even that. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" RV> clause appears in the section of the law defining _oral RV> communications_ (voice phone conversations). All RV> _electronic_ (digital) communications ARE private by law. RV> IOW "public" messages must be labeled as such and available RV> with no password. Everything else is _defined_ as private. Is 'private' defined as unavailable w/out a password? :\ I'll unZIP the copy of the ECPA that's hanging around here somewhere and check it out. Thanks for your input. jason ... Avoid driving a motor vehicle or operating heavy machinery -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLl4oiEjhGzlN9lCZAQGkyAP/YKw9ZMhww2jJOMvs/sEdpmOHRYJYfas5 pN8KbS9ayKizA41znuMMpG5ooXChEgxQukiXbx4PXmvgc38PYqf9h+PPLAyTWdmr w2xG1c/aWr82AfKMMT1riFy1LeX3kdeHUUdqSvLZM/nfomA/siCSYuWi2SFy+yw8 2ziZnlQIbow= =GxJ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ...Key fingerprint = 60 97 B2 AE 7D 90 11 2F 05 1C 35 98 E9 B9 83 61 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Wes Landaker Area: Public Key Encryption To: All 25 Aug 94 20:37:20 Subject: SecureMail UpdReq -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello All! Guy Martin @ 1:202/905, the SecureMail hub for my network, has been marked as down in the nodelist for two weeks now. :( Anybody know what's going on? If not, as opposed to sending all my mail direct, should I simply route through a hub in another net? As it is, I have to call LD for _all_ my fidonet connections, but if I can send 20 netmails via one SecureMail hub . . . you get the idea. ;) (Anyway, I'd offer to hub 202 myself, but unfortunately, I'm long distance from the rest of the net, and I don't think everyone in net202 would appreciate having to call me long distance every time they wanted to send a netmail--just because I have to. =) wjl [Team OS/2] * 1:202/1822@fidonet.org * 371:30/1@chnet.ftn * * wjl@f1822.n202.z1.fidonet.org * PGP Key: AD2254A5 * FREQ: PGPKEY * -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6wjl iQCVAgUBLl1ypslPrmStIlSlAQHUAAP/blPK1qbeGcDda1DKTsTMni5NTyjAls7P yja+9DS4oxqc19cVWyidtAf57P7GUTNJpuJDat1zXM9f/3YtD+T5GXwgQjPXgjj4 7wVsQEXEx4X7UCPAkf38PtqYq4XKsjiYK2oYZTsuiq9n9EsWFiDkoVLXW4aAu1u3 BT7dj9S5maY= =qHp6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shawn McMahon Area: Public Key Encryption To: Jason Carr 27 Aug 94 20:10:18 Subject: Re: Double-Key ENCRYPTION UpdReq Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Jason Carr said this to Scott Mills: JC> Ahh, I see. Do you know if 2.6a fixes the choking on large keys? "fix" assumes it's a bug. It's not; it's that way on purpose. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shawn McMahon Area: Public Key Encryption To: Bruce Bozarth 27 Aug 94 20:14:16 Subject: -- Help -- UpdReq Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Bruce Bozarth said this to Kevin Lo: BB> Well, you're absolutely incorrect. Please stop using extended BB> characters in echomail. Bruce, since your system is quite capable of reading them, upon what basis do you found your objection? 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shawn McMahon Area: Public Key Encryption To: Richard Walker 27 Aug 94 20:18:16 Subject: Re: New to PGP UpdReq Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Richard Walker said this to Shawn McMahon: RW> isn't it. If it came to a court trial, I'd put *big* money RW> on your side loosing. You can go ahead and send me that money, Richard, because Steve Jackson won. There are others, BTW, as has been pointed out at least once in R19SYSOP, which is available to you. RW> let me know, until then, I will continue to be of the RW> opinion, that a fidonet operator has no obligation to route a RW> message with an encrypted signature or text. Richard, you can go right ahead and continue to think the ECPA doesn't apply to you for as long as you want. As long as it doesn't inconvenience me in any way, I'll just laugh at you. The day it does, I'll file charges. Your opinion doesn't change US law any more than Policy4 does. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shawn McMahon Area: Public Key Encryption To: George Hannah 27 Aug 94 20:29:20 Subject: Encryption... UpdReq Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, George Hannah said this to All: GH> The article gave me the impression that since the 2 prime numbers GH> used in the RSA 129 algorithm were calculated, and have been GH> published, that any crypto system using RSA 129 is now GH> compromised. Can anyone tell me how this relates to PGP, or GH> if it even does? There aren't any particular 2 prime numbers involved, George. EACH key pair consists of 2 prime numbers. They cracked *ONE* key. Out of a huge keyspace, consisting of 129-digit keys. Your PGP key is most likely a hell of a lot bigger than 129 digits. RSA 129 is simply the name they chose to designate one particular 129-digit key pair. Your 1024-bit key is safe for a good long while, and PGP will be using larger keys long before computing technology reaches the point where somebody could crack your key with the combined computing power of the entire US government, much less one agency. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shawn McMahon Area: Public Key Encryption To: Shawn K. Quinn 27 Aug 94 20:22:20 Subject: Gary Mirkin's public UpdReq Despite the stern warnings of the tribal elders, Shawn K. Quinn said this to Shawn McMahon: SKQ> Doesn't it also make it possible for someone to forge a secret SKQ> key compromise, or am I missing something? I don't see how, but I'm all ears. How do you think it makes that possible? 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718