--
At 04:06 PM 5/4/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote:
When I've inadvertently offended people here, I've gone out of my
way to show some basic common courtesy and apologize,
In most cases I found your apologies at least as offensive as your
original insults, and frequently more so.
Since you're
Quoting James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
James Donald wrote:
So all of us are full bore paranoids?
Faustine
Is that really what you got out of what I said?
Yes. You are so persistently catty and insulting that you could not
speak without a nasty meaning hidden in your words even
Faustine wrote:
Too true. But if we want to actually reach people who *would* care if only
they
knew, it's important to talk about it without coming across like a full-bore
paranoid. It seems like a bad idea to risk losing credibility with careless
rhetoric and sloppy thinking. More than
--
At 03:00 PM 5/1/2001 -0700, David Honig wrote:
The sheeple can be shown arguments they understand, like: if you
were evil entity, wouldn't you be motivated to insert privacy
affront here. This can alert them.
Then they would promptly vote for a government commissar of privacy, to
--
1. That's for saying I come across like a full-bore paranoid.
At 07:22 PM 4/30/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote:
I wasn't speaking about you in particular AT ALL.
So all of us are full bore paranoids?
Your catty insults, incessant put downs, and your patronizing flattery are
equally
At 12:11 PM 4/25/01 -0400, John Young wrote:
Podesta noted that the 125th anniversary of the gummed-envelope
was approaching. That that technology is trusted for privacy because
of custom and law backing the custom. He stated that any privacy
technology is going to be workable only if backed by
