Angel_OA wrote:Sarcasm wrote:I still stand behind the fact that the mists are a scheme of the guided
That's a fact now?
In the inner logic of my theory, yes, in general, no.
Moderators: Porter, EmperorJeramyu, Telephalsion
Sage Of The Wise wrote:My theory was that the 'mists' was the explosion on Janwen ages and ages ago, and when people wanted an explanation the Guided/Tetzel/who ever else their leader may have been made up all the stuff about the purpose and the forrunners and the mists and got into power. Which would meen the mists dont exist anymore, but the guy who talks about this mists could have been in that explosion to begin with.
Tactician Czanos wrote:And I've lurked around these boards long enough to realize you don't mean to be harsh in your words, Sarcasm, so no hard feelings.
Impossible wrote:Isn't YOUR MOTHER a comment?
Was that some sort of riddle?Pnx wrote:When you come across Traziun and those blood Lyn it is said that the Guided keep trying to tear down the citadels, a lot like how a certain kind of organization does to a certain thing which happens to everyone sooner or later.
qANQR1DBw04DLc2KXKOZXuEQEACZTfBVTYVG1HQLv0OUtziU2B0focg2CDrVw3m3OTi+jsb45/RQQtTzFl1QOK65Elnw70aNW33A
LEQp3kLmMt9cX0hmEc6tmgQzzysq+Pwf5fq2W5lCwRW2WiuUvGBEWEk2Gk0+mKNE23EbsHBdTEfq1B8eLGJzOl8BrQrfTSu9DhXYNqp5R
hG6Ywoo6YJ12pH0nyzAm0JyjKXVupYMk9/VM8SoKPgOrWX10IiNCv/8r2clE7KoWSPteDdxGsZ6cuy2XxlJuP5yfKIN27o0PoyQnN3JLsj1ac
osgJ4nD8IaWKbhEEnyA6GF6q3+ZwZWxBBJeelE0YUVTBIM/8+WGcXX8J2kGMPWFxmOeD97NoiI9WAEf3mPrvAGmR2txBgMAKZRxFLG
R1GkBCqBFRQL4tPPd+IP1NTW/1DW/sUpK9XVgbL6k0hpuMbalIOnvnvuIdA6o4e68Vp7UAFXuHGVqTSY4utbuYu3DKQQFpLMAiWi9JFEwlH
kgr8r888R65NFZbNMnDb2gpzmfRndSNWG/JDhZGDpVOwN2Z7fvGL2Mr/QIKMbcry80Ew+tHse1QiBxQyUlAhyJq7bBZFwqqaZBXVN8DooT
SdIQcOPshvXRYx+UG496hCBrkylFjAosCQfnP+LADlxCuLIpNU3g98VdmA+y/S9UX1BO8b+ZvJb+kAY1BAA6XZ8zXZk2uaXYpqAnivjpCq
aLZ+wgdfpPr4M/dakVuLe3P2uTfrW6O4vxl7pDVTXiFRz3G0625KfqDfYs+dZ59fIg+vHjODKBEtaD8kBG5bSI9TmDjmqhmNRkljyxByxJGIC
BbnhZPsq0WnTSry36NvzWbsZb9hs1pdNXVk/YuZcGLH2AdXeNwmeQFzQ9u0iE2Wbz8vxl2ZRGoihr6/0Z16SYgsEHR3Kd/RdnHNNEZQqX3
5fsF9ynegsMc7q/ibyHkSvBzcKqfnqVMl6FqeuovHPIhYY605o07EdpLtK6nMZrGim3F5fC7cZmoCMAuOZ35R3d6H9NKr4/379092MWDCrON
tsMpNtWmjrPqz6K38RuymLUB0se9tRtVvNS/gKy6BV3J5O4a1ZeTLm7WJRh/YvLYSxv6ZG+mQuvzzlhDpinSAHA0a78xEf
PZLnHhAhJkjTaZMzNLOtx8YJFIwYKSS6HHb5fZfCVk1hxbz5aI7EvAxJt8TnQhQeFw1rkMedpb63ybFLSckE6yV1sHWZtaf5cjMSBo+TvvGhG
oGttBaubme3YXElrAWRvtMZO5VIWRQPMkuJ4bFffrOYSmzJ8JaraTMaT2R9j5xPGJQDMgVcDj1llVKvZjm0IPB1U7c5YK+DJzcruKlMxaUTtB
5I3kUZUDJElWCY8WbA2X+8o0DJJtgEXrJf/xPWQ1TSlZSIpv2LO713yZxxZCsCTBwmSWNc4JglX+Y5
=h7os
SHORTER VERSION
qANQR1DBwE4DtTAVq5jVdF4QA/sG04ZyMNhoVP+Ab7IfXzbFDE02tqRAPf+q1U2TSWdBQyudS24rdhiM3/OkPDuR1bDn4hu8ILUeIv4hx+
Lc8Z7pfqaPsOXQmNYI7gsFstvDyiAMs5O5uauiGj0Bq8CXEdWKYCrOBoPkvGpjrMrUuuq0vOrklEs7xDCo6kbNZ19tkwQAg742aQivdDHDq
ut5CJCnyAzjrwFJG126crQ+nsYXBeO6dS/lpebbjUmm33qWvimfls9KcCrzyScRtsU20hAdSgdMhNzgKMA/ofIPmlsxcp48MwQWkVXtOuim/
d45iim2cyNhJz7W7ZmTgDyIehGxZppM0o6ArTxGN0kwebka30zJJhmMdYhwPojKqdk0n3JP1A7vPLyejnlhHP2IR9zuLQeDsRjINSeV
=meur
According to the RFC2440, an OpenPGP implementation can place a "Tag 10" "Marker Packet" containing the text "PGP" as the first packet
in a message in order to indicate that the message contains features not
implemented in PGP 2.6.x. A Tag 10 "PGP" packet, when ASCII armored,
turns into "qANQR1DB" or thereabouts. If your messages were beginning
with "qANQR1DB", then I would know that you are using a version of PGP
more recent than 2.6.x.
Return to POST-EPISODE 6 Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests