[null] (Meeting Techniques)

[Wilfred L. Guerin]

Meetings...

Basicly, the reality suggests that you should assume everything and
anything is known by any party interested. The complexities of this
knowledge and correlation database are far more vast than your
comprehension of yourself. 

Assume All is known.

Based on this, any highly-public or open location is best suited for
discussions on theorhetical or conceptual activities, however the
assumption here is that your ability to cognise and PRODUCE/ACTIVATE the
desired operation is far supperior than the ability of the 'others' to
deduce your operations.

You work on your primary project or activity, they must deal with a far
more vast structure of heirchy or tactical information. Your internal logic
and connections with your affiliates is a direct link at higher complexity
than the surface appearance. "What exactly did he mean by that?" Is the key
question that will arise in an external analysis. You comprehend what you
do, they must deduce it before comprehending.

On the inverse, any attempt to disguise or 'hide' activities will generate
additional interest in the thing, due to technologies available, there are
very few "secure" environments or capacities in which to disguise or ghost
operations. You may assume that any attempt to hide will result in more
expediant review and higher concentrations of resources (intellectual or
otherwise) expended on your analysis.

Unless you have a perfect environment, which with current techology on the
public market, none such exist (no less that tech which we have not
formally seen).

Therefore the intellectual war becomes truely intellectual. Who can
produce, accomplish, or otherwise activate the desired operation in a
manner supperior to another?

In context, it is your head against mine. If you stimulate my interest by
hiding, you reduce your obscurity. 
If you do not waste my time and tell me what you are doing (which I can
deduce within a short duration of analysis), then no undue heed will be
taken to your activities, other than a routine analysis and notation. ["I"
is conceptual]

The existance of reality is based on a ballence. This must be sustained so
as to not disrupt the perceptions of "sheep" or "good"/"bad" ... If you
have a legitimate antagonistic project, your activities may be more
desirable than not. If you stimulate 'competition' or whatnot, your chances
of success are far higher than being eliminated due to unknown motivations
for doing something. Intellectia is the goal, there is no reason to hide,
there is reason to do, effeciently.

Contrary, if you have a production project, it would be best to utilize
semi-secure mediums and context so your low-level competitors do not usurp
your work. On the broader spectrum, any competant logistic or intellectual
activity will be reconstructable by infinitely many parties. Assume they
know what you do, and strive to do something new rather than waste
everyone's time hiding or suppressing common knowledge.

All is known. Technology prevents total secrecy. Conceptual secrecy is the
remaining factor, and the utilization of this concept is of highest
importance in any activity.

Can you function quicker, more efficiently, or more optimally than others?
If you are concerned about the others and are not dilusional, then you have
a high chance of completing the operation in a far more ideal manner.

Let be known what will be known, however if something is more advanced than
common comprehension, keep it quiet, yet not evasive in proportion, and
allow reality to flow. The chances that others can reproduce what you think
of in YOUR head as effectively as you can think on your own, is highly
unlikely with 'current' technology.

As such, ignore the threat of others' knowledge, your perception of this is
dilusional. If you know it, someone else does. If you came up with it, it
is probible that at least some other entity was able to do the same thing.
If not, then you can expect to incorporate their capacities with your new
revelations. Such is modern reality.

Where is the best meeting place? -- Such is no longer relevant if all is
known. How you utilize your choice of meeting place definitely is.

In the pursuit of a competant reality...

-Wilfred L. Guerin
Wilfred at Cryogen.com



At 03:32 PM 3/30/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
>>On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
>>
>>> Bus stations, train stations, airports, etc. are the WORST place to meet
>>> in a 'high technology' society. The crowds won't do you any good.
>>
>>I should explain why,
>>
>>Cameras stop time.
>
>In this matter, I fear, Jim's moment to be right has come around 
>again.  Crowded noisy spaces are right when the threat model is 
>humans listening and humans watching.  
>
>When the threat model is machines recording, and data storage is 
>cheap enough that people can go back through the system weeks 
>or months later to see what went on exactly, Crowded noisy spaces 
>are no longer right.
>
>I don't even know what spaces are right for meetings any more, 
>especially considering that this came up in the context of 
>getting a vagrant to act as your physical agent in purchasing 
>a MO.  The average vagrant has neither patience nor attention 
>span nor trustworthiness for operations requiring more than a 
>few hours of working for someone else, especially while holding 
>a negotiable instrument and traversing a relatively witness-free 
>space. 
>
>*sigh*.  At best, you trade one risk for another.  At worst, 
>the vagrant makes a fuss and yells for an officer and claims 
>he's being robbed when you try to get the MO you paid for.  
>
>				Bear