I find it very convenient that as soon as I point out your missteps in logic
you suddenly shift your argument if I may call it that to the opposite of what
you appeared to originally intend to say. while you seem to want to disagree
with what I say, 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. If you
would like a good conversation then please do stay consistent and stay clear
and straight forward.
19. Mar 2017 15:04 by onp...@riseup.net:
> On 03/19/2017 02:34 PM, > awake...@tutanota.de> wrote:
>> If IceCat isn't important in the grande scheme of things, then what
>> browser may you suggest other security and privacy conscious users use
>> in the place of IceCat, god forbid it wasn't a choice anymore?
>
> I was talking about people who *don't* care about these issues, and
> proprietary software developers. As in, IceCat is *tiny* compared to
> e.g. Google Chrome or Safari. As in, it's ridiculous to think that any
> of those companies would have any interest in spending money to... how
> did you put it? "[G]ive them more work because they want them to fail."
>
>> there aren't many other actual good choices out
>> there.
>
> For privacy and security? IceCat isn't even the best browser for that.
> That would be the Tor Browser Bundle. Which, incidentally, probably has
> a larger user base than IceCat.
>
>> I value critical thinking
>
> And yet you are not applying it. There is no reason anyone would be
> motivated to make IceCat fail.
>
>> I could say the same thing about your emails but I try to be
>> a nice person.
>
> No, you couldn't, at least not honestly. You sent *eight* emails in *one
> hour*, without anyone replying, all on the same topic. This is spam. I
> sent *one* email in response. This is not spam.
>
> --
> Julie Marchant
> https://onpon4.github.io
>
> Protect your emails with GnuPG:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
