On 10/14/2016 09:45 AM, Mirimir wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 09:57 AM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 2016 10:28 AM, "Razer" <ray...@riseup.net> wrote:
>>> Sound like information suppression to me... Jacob Appelbaum is a 'public
>> person' and subject to conversation, and he expects it. Don't like it?
>>> Don't read it.
>> Razer, I love Jake and he knows it very well. I was just trying to stop
>> your creepy public threats, which were completely off topic and very
>> Please, if you want to talk about Jake, talk about him,not about me,
>> Razer. Weirdo psycho, aff...
> Yeah. As I said, it's just not honorable to disclose private
> communications. Or even privileged information obtained through private
> communications. I learned that as a drug dealer. As an activist. When I
> started using the Internet. As a sovereign individual.
This discussion happens on the street a LOT you know.
There's people who talk about people for the sake of influence peddling
and just talking smack.
Then there are people who talk about people when the people they're
discussing it with, typically friends, ARE IN DANGER OR POTENTIALLY
THREATENED due to the person being discussed.
Police Snitching and careless talk/influence peddling people get stitches.
Sharing important intelligence with comrades does not seem to have that
effect. You wouldn't tell one of your drug dealing comrades you
suspected someone was a narc? If not, Why? More biz for you while the
other dealer's sitting in jail perhaps?
> OK, you say, but what about leaking stuff? How is that not disclosing
> privileged information? For sure. But it's distinguishable. Leaking is
> honorable when the subject is powerful, and is using their power to
> injure the innocent.
PSychological trolling injures the innocent.
Let's say, for giggles because it isn't the case, that I had just ended
a relationship and was feeling depressed and not interested in someone
else's advances, and I was receiving mail like that?
Innocent and injured. Perhaps driven to suicide eh?
Posting private messages in public, without
> explicit permission, does not constitute leaking. It is dishonorable,
> and it demonstrates that the perpetrator cannot be trusted.
> Just sayin'.
Someone sending unsolicited emails, especially when they're requested to
desist is "dishonorable and it demonstrates that the perpetrator cannot
Ps. You said you were a drug dealer. You never learned "Don't Trust
ANYONE"? How DID you survive? Must have been a pretty middle class circle.