oh, playing nice now? I knew you wouldn't mark me as spam. you want to continue
this game, what a surprise.
24. Mar 2017 18:59 by onp...@riseup.net:
>
> 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, > awake...@tutanota.de> 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 >> onp...@riseup.net>> :
>>
>>
>>> On 03/24/2017 07:09 AM, >>> awake...@tutanota.de>>> 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
--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
