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. >