On 07/01/2016 09:21 PM, juan wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 21:07:22 -0600 > Mirimir <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> As I said, your reading comprehension sucks. > > No it doesn't. I explained that given the 'context' my > reading is quite valid. Looks like your writing sucks.
De gustibus non disputandem ;) >> Or you're just twisting >> shit to pretend that you're right. > > I am right. And you admited that anonimity systems don't work. I did no such thing. >>> So you say that 'anonimity systems' *may eventually* reduce >>> state power, from which it follows that RIGHT NOW, THEY >>> DON'T. And you further acknowledge that such reduction seems >>> like a dream. >>> >>> So you basically conceded my point. I simply reading your >>> allegedly 'general' comment in a way that underscores the >>> fact that tor doesn't work. You're forgetting the "substantially" bit. Tor does reduce state power, now, for many people. Maybe not overall, on a net basis, given how state fascists use it. By "substantially", I mean that anonymity systems might eventually destroy states by undermining taxation. As in Stephenson's _Snow Crash_ or MacArdry's _Last Trumpet Project_. >> It works for many people. > > What a fucktard you are. It's clear again that your writing > skills suck. > > "I also believe that they may eventually reduce state power > substantially. " > > So they don't work They don't yet work substantially, fucktard ;) > "It works for many people." > > So you contadicted yourself. But don' worry. You got it right > the first time. Anonimity systems don't work. > > >> >>> Would *working* anonimity systems reduce state power? Likely >>> yes. Do the current anonimity systems reduce state power? >>> No. Especially tor, a creation of the state. >> >> So you keep saying. > > Because it is correct. > > >> >>>> It's about anonymity systems generally. That's what you're >>>> apparently saying is bullshit. Or have I misread you? >>> >>> Anonimity systems in general include tor in particular. >> >> Yes, but statements about anonymity systems generally aren't limited >> to Tor. > > > But tor is 'the best'. So if even 'the best' is a failure, then > the rest of systems are going to be even more of a failure. > That's like the A of the ABC of basic logic. The best _right now_ does not mean the best ever. WTF. >>>> But right now, Tor is the best we have. >>> >>> Yeah. You said so a couple of times... >>> >>> >>>> So we use it, with suitable >>>> precautions. Or we play naked. What else do you suggest? >>>> >>> >>> I suggest you stop using the pronoun 'we'. *You* find the >>> 'free' tax-funded pentagon's 'anonimity' network useful and >>> apparently don't care much about the real price of the system. >> >> No, I don't care about the "real price of the system". Why should I? > > > Right. You are a 'nihilist' eh? As long as you can buy dmt it's > OK for the pentagon to fuck as many people as they can. It's not "OK". It's what's so. The Pentagon will use any anonymity system to fuck people. >> And, as I said before, people that you hate would be using any >> effective anonymity system. So you might as well get over it. > > grarpamp replied to that particular piece of bullshit. He's not so rabid about not using Tor, I think. >>> I further suggest that anybody interested in freedom stay >>> away from the pentagon. Doubly so if they are cypherpunk >>> 'anarchists' or sympathetic to the cause. >> >> The Pentagon is everywhere, dude ;) > > > So? It's in your mind ;)
