On Apr 21, 2009, at 7:38 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
"Sure. They told me some stuff, and I treated it as anecdote until I
got confirmation from an attorney."
The correct answer is "yes". On cross-examination you're not
allowed to
give exposition.
"Your Honor, I object. Assuming facts almost comically not in
evidence." The original poster says nothing about using this list as
a "first source of information" (your words), or even any words to
that effect. In fact, allow me to repost the entire post:
> Can OpenPGP digital signature be used to comply to FDA's 21 CFR
Part 11 , or does it mandatorily require X.509 or PKI based signatures
That's it. One line. You seem to be concluding from this that he has
somehow done something wrong by merely asking the question, but I see
no actual facts to base that on: merely a guess as to the situation
underlying the question, and then scolding the questioner based on
your guess. Maybe it would be better let the questioner be
responsible for the questioner?
I'm happy to continue this discussion offline if you like, but as this
no longer has any bearing on GPG or OpenPGP, it seems inappropriate
for this list.
David
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
