On 10/14/2016 11:11 AM, Razer wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
>>> bizarre.
>>>
>>> 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.

Dude, this is just a fucking public mail list. Tone down the drama!

> 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?

I might share such information privately, if it seemed warranted. But I
wouldn't do so via insecure channels. And for sure, I wouldn't discuss
that stuff in public.

> Rr
> 
> 
>> 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
> be trusted."
> 
> Rr
> 
> 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.
> 

Reply via email to