[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: awakeyet
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 21:03:51 +0200 (CEST)

I could say the exact same things about you. I invite everyone to read the entire history of all the emails I have been a part of. you can clearly see my good intent and where I'm coming from. you haven't seen the horrors that I've seen. you haven't seen what agents looks like. they have torn apart such great communities before for such petty reasons. I want everyone to be aware so that it does not happen here. I believe those who try to silence me are the actual agents. again I invite everyone to read all my past emails in their full entire history.

24. Mar 2017 20:22 by address@hidden:

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

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.

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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]