I'm afraid I won't argue with unsubstantiated speculation. However, if you would like to answer the questions I have asked, that will get us on track toward a proper debate based on evidence.
--
Julie Marchant
https://onpon4.github.io
On Mar 24, 2017 6:41 PM,
address@hidden wrote:
I see what you're doing here, you're playing game of questions with me and being very evasive while pretending to have no idea what I am talking about, while also simultaneously giving yourself the unfounded excuse to back up your own flawed argument that "I'm wrong" for "no mentioned facts or reasons" without actually providing evidence that supports your claims against me even though I'm the one always pointing out the truth because I want people to wake up.
How convenient that you never show my previous full reply in your messages to me so that people find it more difficult to follow this wild goose chase back and forth you are trying to play me with. I said it before and I'll say it again, if you don't like me for any reason, mark my emails as spam. I honestly do not enjoy our interactions and I politely request that you Julie, personally mark me as spam once and for all. But I know you wont, because that doesn't accomplish your goals does it? I'm not sorry and nobody is going to shut me up. I love helping people so please I kindly ask that you prove me wrong and don't message me again.
24. Mar 2017 09:01 by address@hidden:
On 03/24/2017 07:09 AM, address@hidden wrote:I point out your missteps in logic
Where did you do this, and what "missteps in logic" are you talking about?
you suddenly shift your argument if I may call it that to the opposite of what you appeared to originally intend to say.
What did you perceive me as originally intending to say, and what part
of my message made you perceive that?
you don't actually want to provide a logical argument that shows any facts and reasons why what I said wasn't good enough for you.
I didn't respond to your email to argue against it. I responded to your
email to ask you to stop flooding my mailbox, as at the time you had
sent eight emails in quick succession for no good reason.
I did of course argue against what you were saying, but it's a very
simple argument that you could easily refute if you are on the side of
truth:
1. There is no evidence to support your hypothesis.
2. There is no reasonable motivation for any known party to do what you
suggest.
I can't prove that there isn't a conspiracy going on any more than you
could prove that the tooth fairy isn't real. But you can either show
evidence that supports your hypothesis, or at least start by showing a
credible motivation someone could have to want to sabotage IceCat and
not, say, Tor Browser.
I love it how everyone is mentioning TOR but they all fail to mention the important details like how extremely slow it is, the lack of functionality, and how many times it has been compromised. thanks for the suggestion but I'm very proud of what the creators of icecat have done.
Matters of convenience like how fast the browser don't matter in this
discussion, because if a malicious party wants to sabotage users'
privacy, they will go for the more popular option no matter how
convenient it is for the users, and given the lack of attention IceCat
has gotten anywhere outside of our little circle and the boost in
attention Tor Browser has gotten from the Snowden revelations, Tor
Browser appears to be more popular. If you have any evidence to show
that IceCat is actually more popular than Tor Browser, please feel free
to present it.
In what way is IceCat more secure than the Tor Browser Bundle? These are
the facts I can see:
1. IceCat is frequently behind its upstream, Firefox, on updates.
2. IceCat includes LibreJS, which selectively stops scripts from
executing based on the presence or absence of a license statement in a
particular format. This means that any malicious party can convince
IceCat to execute _javascript_ simply by lying about the license, or
(because the _javascript_ infrastructure doesn't enable forking of a
website's _javascript_ code, and LibreJS doesn't even support blocking any
scripts it detects as libre) simply making the script libre and keeping
in the malicious functionality. I explained this in my essay,
"Proprietary _javascript_: Fix, or Kill?"[1] Therefore, LibreJS cannot
reliably be protective ag