|
| From: | awakeyet |
| Subject: | Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye |
| Date: | Thu, 11 May 2017 21:03:51 +0200 (CEST) |
Am Sat, 25 Mar 2017 00:19:53 +0100 (CET)
schrieb <address@hidden>:oh, playing nice now? I knew you wouldn't mark me as spam. you wantYou "argue" as if you want to make as much users move away from icecat.
to continue this game, what a surprise.
You spam this mailing list in a way, that might discourage people from
subscribing to the list or make others unsubscribe.
As long as others answer to your mails (as I do at the moment), it's
not possible to "mark you as spam". To much broken threads would be the
result.
You behave like a classical agent provocateur and if I would follow you
own arguments, I could say you are a NSA agent or work for a competitor
of icecat and you try to destroy this project.
I believe (hope?) your purposes are the best, but the result is
disastrous in my opinion.
Jens24. Mar 2017 18:59 by address@hidden:
>
> 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
| [Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |