Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:49:04 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1763125@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.229.254.14; envelope-from=jschroeder@perigee.net
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Pinpoint
References: <list-1760747@logan.com>
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <list-1760747@logan.com>
User-Agent: Opera M2/8.54 (Win32, build 7730)

Brent -

I have studied WWII extensively and I am quite familiar with the Battle of Britain and events of 1940. Could you provide a summary of your friend's experience in Coventry to help me put some context around the paragraph cited below? I would also appreciate an historical reference or two to further assist this process.

I am having trouble equating any WWII analogy to the issue of this thread: keeping the suppliers and manufacturer of a piece of experimental aircraft avionics anonymous.

There was a huge, devastating war going on where millions of lives and critical war production were at stake all over the world. The need for secrecy to save lives and protect resources is not at issue here. However, we also paid a heavy price in lives SACRIFICED because we did not want to reveal to the Germans or Japanese that we had their codes.

Regards,

John


On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:01:14 -0500, Brent Regan <brent@regandesigns.com> wrote:

> John also seems to be implying that  the ability to keep confidential information confidential somehow contrasts with being "honest".  A good friend of mine survived to bombing of Coventry (11/15/1940) during WWII. Study this event you will have a deeper appreciation of the need for keeping a secret.