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
--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
