Am Sat, 25 Mar 2017 00:19:53 +0100 (CET) schrieb <awake...@tutanota.de>:
> oh, playing nice now? I knew you wouldn't mark me as spam. you want > to continue this game, what a surprise. > You "argue" as if you want to make as much users move away from icecat. 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. Jens > 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
pgpNQJGhOEmbE.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
-- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
