Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye

[Jens Lody]

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 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 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

pgpo7wwmLJDx6.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP