* Andrei POPESCU [21-03/12=Fr 17:51 +0200]:
> When Facebook was in its infancy (at least in my country)
> they were spamming my e-mail inviting me to join [...]
I wanted to know what "my country" designated, so ...
- `g Andrei POPESCU` ---
Andrei Popescu is a Romanian lawyer and a judge
On Sat, May 8, 2021, 7:22 AM Andrei POPESCU
wrote:
> On Du, 21 mar 21, 09:55:32, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > Of course the *primary* private key should be protected properly. A
> > Debian recommendation (that I can't find) was suggesting to generate and
> > keep it on a Tails USB stick and use
On Du, 21 mar 21, 09:55:32, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> Of course the *primary* private key should be protected properly. A
> Debian recommendation (that I can't find) was suggesting to generate and
> keep it on a Tails USB stick and use it only for certifying other keys.
>
> Day to day work
On Tue 23 Mar 2021 at 21:21:32 +0200, ellanios82 wrote:
> On 3/23/21 5:51 PM, Viktor Vogel wrote:
> > An observation from a native English speaker -
> >
> > I've lived and worked in the Republic of China, and had gotten a fairly
> > good grasp of Mandarin. In my experience tackling Russian I
On 3/23/21 5:51 PM, Viktor Vogel wrote:
An observation from a native English speaker -
I've lived and worked in the Republic of China, and had gotten a
fairly good grasp of Mandarin. In my experience tackling Russian I
found it much more difficult than Chinese.
Chinese has different sounds,
On 2021-03-23, Viktor Vogel wrote:
> An observation from a native English speaker -
>
> I've lived and worked in the Republic of China, and had gotten a fairly
> good grasp of Mandarin. In my experience tackling Russian I found it
> much more difficult than Chinese.
>
I remember seeing an
An observation from a native English speaker -
I've lived and worked in the Republic of China, and had gotten a fairly
good grasp of Mandarin. In my experience tackling Russian I found it
much more difficult than Chinese.
Chinese has different sounds, and tones that need to be mastered, but
On 23-03-2021 06:06, deloptes wrote:
> Weaver wrote:
>
>> Not an easy language to learn, however, unless you already have Slavic
>> roots.
>
> You mean Chinese is easier than Russian and Russian is harder than French?
> And I mean not only speaking, but also writing
Yes, once you understand
deloptes writes:
> You mean Chinese is easier than Russian and Russian is harder than
> French?
I have no experience with Chinese but I found Russian harder than French
(though I've pretty much forgotten both).
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
Weaver wrote:
> Not an easy language to learn, however, unless you already have Slavic
> roots.
You mean Chinese is easier than Russian and Russian is harder than French?
And I mean not only speaking, but also writing
On 23-03-2021 05:47, deloptes wrote:
> Weaver wrote:
>
>> Yes.
>> But, once there, far better to learn the language.
>> The resultant experience is well worth it.
>> The money is not the same, but the cost of living is much lower.
>> Cheers!
>
> I was thinking to go to Chech Republic or Russia -
Weaver wrote:
> Yes.
> But, once there, far better to learn the language.
> The resultant experience is well worth it.
> The money is not the same, but the cost of living is much lower.
> Cheers!
I was thinking to go to Chech Republic or Russia - found the language
easier, but thanks anyway -
On 22-03-2021 19:00, deloptes wrote:
> Weaver wrote:
>
>> They have some excellent language schools and, being surrounded by it,
>> it's a fast way to learn.
>
> you mean I can look for a position in China without knowing Chinese?
Yes.
But, once there, far better to learn the language.
The
On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 01:20:02 + (UTC)
Long Wind wrote:
>
> term Chinese government is quite misleadingit's used as if it's same
> as other legitimate government, i.e. elected by people its true
> nature is criminal group, as described in bill by US senator
>
All governments are criminal
Weaver wrote:
> They have some excellent language schools and, being surrounded by it,
> it's a fast way to learn.
you mean I can look for a position in China without knowing Chinese?
On 22-03-2021 18:13, deloptes wrote:
> Long Wind wrote:
>
>> where do you live? most rich Chinese are considering emigration to West,
>> this is called vote by feet. how many people in West come to live in
>> china?
>
> my problem is the language, otherwise we could switch for couple of years to
Long Wind wrote:
> where do you live? most rich Chinese are considering emigration to West,
> this is called vote by feet. how many people in West come to live in
> china?
my problem is the language, otherwise we could switch for couple of years to
exchange experience
LOn Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 11:49 PM Long Wind wrote:
> where do you live? most rich Chinese are considering emigration to West,
> this is called vote by feet. how many people in West come to live in china?
>
I know quite a few Chinese people who lived in the US for 5-8 years and
could have easily
deloptes writes:
> The difference as said is, that you know what China is doing
You think you know what China is doing.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
On 22-03-2021 16:49, Long Wind wrote:
> On Monday, March 22, 2021, 2:20:20 PM GMT+8, deloptes
> wrote:
>
> The difference as said is, that you know what China is doing, but you
> do not
>
> know what USA is doing. The moment you speak out (Assange, Snowden and
> many
>
> many others) it is
On 22-03-2021 16:19, deloptes wrote:
> Long Wind wrote:
>
>> term Chinese government is quite misleadingit's used as if it's same as
>> other legitimate government, i.e. elected by people its true nature is
>> criminal group, as described in bill by US senator
>
> The difference as said is,
On Monday, March 22, 2021, 2:20:20 PM GMT+8, deloptes
wrote:
The difference as said is, that you know what China is doing, but you do not
know what USA is doing. The moment you speak out (Assange, Snowden and many
many others) it is the same as China.
China is bad, but the illusion of
Long Wind wrote:
> term Chinese government is quite misleadingit's used as if it's same as
> other legitimate government, i.e. elected by people its true nature is
> criminal group, as described in bill by US senator
The difference as said is, that you know what China is doing, but you do not
On 22-03-2021 11:20, Long Wind wrote:
> deloptes wrote:
>
> Well, they are brain washed - in a sense they know that it is
> impossible to
>
> stand up against and also might be not wise, because proven is the
> fact
>
> they manage things better than neighbor India or developed Europe.
>
> I
deloptes wrote:
Well, they are brain washed - in a sense they know that it is impossible to
stand up against and also might be not wise, because proven is the fact
they manage things better than neighbor India or developed Europe.
I wanted to avoid being criticized for praising China.
can
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 14:33:50 +0100
deloptes wrote:
> Weaver wrote:
> >
> > I was in China at the time, and it was far from
> > `totalitarian/militant'. The people just played it smart, as they
> > also did in New Zealand, which was also not
> > `totalitarian/militant'.
>
> Well, they are
Weaver wrote:
> On 21-03-2021 20:39, deloptes wrote:
>> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>
>>> In hindsight, what was meant as a joke probably came out as mocking, I
>>> apologise for that.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you do know that the public key needs to be made available for
>>> others to be able to send you
On 21-03-2021 20:39, deloptes wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
>> In hindsight, what was meant as a joke probably came out as mocking, I
>> apologise for that.
>>
>> I'm sure you do know that the public key needs to be made available for
>> others to be able to send you encrypted messages.
>>
>>
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> In hindsight, what was meant as a joke probably came out as mocking, I
> apologise for that.
>
> I'm sure you do know that the public key needs to be made available for
> others to be able to send you encrypted messages.
>
> Of course the *primary* private key should be
On Sb, 20 mar 21, 19:11:07, deloptes wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> > In my (not so humble) opinion, this level of security could make sense
> > for a disident in a totalitarian state, less so for regular users in
> > democratic country.
> >
>
> And you disappoint me here too - you believe
On Sb, 20 mar 21, 19:03:58, deloptes wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> > Good luck in doing public key cryptography without publishing the public
> > key :)
>
> Andrei - you disappoint me here!
In hindsight, what was meant as a joke probably came out as mocking, I
apologise for that.
I'm
On 21-03-2021 17:06, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On Sun Mar 21 00:01:59 2021 Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
>>> In my (not so humble) opinion, this level of security could make
>>> sense for a disident in a totalitarian state, less so for regular
>>> users in democratic country.
>>
>> Reminds me of the
On Sun Mar 21 00:01:59 2021 Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> In my (not so humble) opinion, this level of security could make
>> sense for a disident in a totalitarian state, less so for regular
>> users in democratic country.
>
> Reminds me of the saying that the difference between USA and USSR was
>
Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Reminds me of the saying that the difference between USA and USSR was
> that in USSR the population knew that it was propaganda.
Exactly - this part is absolutely the same.
The difference is in the methods. There it was wellknown, here - not until
internet came out ... or
> In my (not so humble) opinion, this level of security could make sense
> for a disident in a totalitarian state, less so for regular users in
> democratic country.
Reminds me of the saying that the difference between USA and USSR was
that in USSR the population knew that it was propaganda.
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> In my (not so humble) opinion, this level of security could make sense
> for a disident in a totalitarian state, less so for regular users in
> democratic country.
>
And you disappoint me here too - you believe in illusion of democracy, which
is not so obvious as i.e. in
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Good luck in doing public key cryptography without publishing the public
> key :)
Andrei - you disappoint me here!
On Vi, 19 mar 21, 00:54:08, deloptes wrote:
> Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> > I hear there's a lot of interesting discussions there about how to
> > communicate safely, but sadly so far I haven't managed to configure my
> > safe not-internet-connected machine to participate.
>
> do you think it is
Celejar wrote:
> I certainly agree that they aren't "perfectly comparable or even the
> same," and I certainly do trust open source software considerably more.
> I was just objecting to absolutist claims that non-open source software
> is completely untrustworthy - claims such as yours that
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:53:13 -0300
riveravaldez wrote:
> On 3/18/21, Celejar wrote:
...
> > (...) The bottom line: no, I don't "know" that WhatsApp is secure, but
> > neither do I "know" that anything I run is. (...)
>
> To put it simply, I can't accept the idea that in terms of security or
Stefan Monnier wrote:
> I hear there's a lot of interesting discussions there about how to
> communicate safely, but sadly so far I haven't managed to configure my
> safe not-internet-connected machine to participate.
do you think it is possible to have public & encrypted discussion, when we
do
> Perhaps you and all the others could use -debian-offtopic to air
Not sure what "offtopic" has to do with this discussion, so I'll assume
it was a typo for `debian-offline`.
I hear there's a lot of interesting discussions there about how to
communicate safely, but sadly so far I haven't managed
On 3/18/21, Celejar wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:49:27 -0300
> riveravaldez wrote:
>
>> I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements.
>>
>> On 3/18/21, Celejar wrote:
>> > (...)
>> > I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not
>> > quite your vehemence), but
On Thu 18 Mar 2021 at 21:09:58 +0100, deloptes wrote:
> to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > Come on, as soon as you go out to the street you can be run over by a
> > bus...
> >
> > You'll still take some precautions, as it might enhance your odds of
> > survival :)
> >
> >> Why should I bother with
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> Come on, as soon as you go out to the street you can be run over by a
> bus...
>
> You'll still take some precautions, as it might enhance your odds of
> survival :)
>
>> Why should I bother with your encryption efforts, when I can read your
>> screen?
>
> This is a
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:49:27 -0300
riveravaldez wrote:
> I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements.
>
> On 3/18/21, Celejar wrote:
> > (...)
> > I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not
> > quite your vehemence), but making **blatantly incorrect** assertions
Suffice it to say that the only Social Media outfit I trust less than I
trust Facebook or Twitter (neither of which I trust any further than I
can throw the U.S.S. Hornet) is LinkedIn. Which I have loathed since
*before* they became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsloth.
--
JHHL
(I'd use a
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:25:48 +0100
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:07:08AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not
> > quite your vehemence),
>
> :-)
>
> >but making blatantly
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:49:27 -0300
riveravaldez wrote:
> I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements.
>
> On 3/18/21, Celejar wrote:
> > (...)
> > I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps
> > not quite your vehemence), but making **blatantly incorrect**
> >
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:07:08AM -0400, Celejar wrote:
[...]
> I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not
> quite your vehemence),
:-)
>but making blatantly incorrect assertions like
> the claim that Facebook is one of the ends of WhatsApp's
On 3/18/21, riveravaldez wrote:
> I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements.
> (...)
Sorry to everybody, I forgot to fix the addresses...
I'm getting pretty confuse with these statements.
On 3/18/21, Celejar wrote:
> (...)
> I definitely share your concerns about Facebook (although perhaps not
> quite your vehemence), but making **blatantly incorrect** assertions like
> the claim that Facebook is one of the ends of WhatsApp's E2E
On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 09:28:06 +0100
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 10:54:24PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:45:28 +0100
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 09:24:50AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > Fortunately
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:55:54AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 18 mar 21, 09:28:06, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >
> > So while I don't doubt that the WA client *could* *in principle*
> > do end-to-end encryption, they'll do whatever it takes to trick
> > end users to share their juicy
On Jo, 18 mar 21, 09:28:06, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> So while I don't doubt that the WA client *could* *in principle*
> do end-to-end encryption, they'll do whatever it takes to trick
> end users to share their juicy data with the mothership, FB. It's
> their life-blood.
I'm guessing the full
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 05:03:49AM +0100, deloptes wrote:
> Celejar wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure whether you're being serious or facetious, but WhatsApp
> > apparently has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the Signal protocol,
> > and neither of the ends is Facebook.
> >
> > Of course, it's
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 10:54:24PM -0400, Celejar wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:45:28 +0100
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 09:24:50AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > Fortunately most of the
> > > conversations have been moving to WhatsApp
Celejar wrote:
> I'm not sure whether you're being serious or facetious, but WhatsApp
> apparently has genuine end-to-end encryption, using the Signal protocol,
> and neither of the ends is Facebook.
>
> Of course, it's closed source, so we can't know for sure what's really
> in there, and I
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 09:45:28 +0100
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 09:24:50AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
...
> > Fortunately most of the
> > conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are supposed to
> > be encrypted, at least).
>
> Yeah, right.
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 10:54:26AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
[...]
> I'm better at asynchronous as well, but still find instant messaging to
> have it's uses [...]
> And then there's group chats. There's a reason IRC still exists ;)
Agreed. Tools, jobs and all that :)
Cheers
- t
On Du, 14 mar 21, 14:49:03, Joe wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 13:23:17 +0100
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 02:08:34PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > On Du, 14 mar 21, 12:19:34, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > > in the first place, I'm not the target audience for
>> And signal... with all due respect to Moxie Marlinspike...
>> - the centralised server model
>> - the fact they don't publish their server code since a while
> https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server
To the extent that the service is centralized, I don't really care if
their code is
> Federated services have metadata as well.
> If a particular communication involves two different servers now *both*
> servers will have all the metadata for that communication.
Indeed, hiding all the metadata is *hard*.
Still, Having the overall metadata divided among a hundred servers or
>> The problem is also the metadata: it still leaves a centralized record
>> of who sent what size of message to whom at what time and from which
>> IP address.
>
> It's definitely more than just "dry" IP addresses:
I was talking about Signal (I admit I didn't make that clear).
Stefan
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 13:23:17 +0100
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 02:08:34PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > On Du, 14 mar 21, 12:19:34, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > in the first place, I'm not the target audience for instant
> > > messaging anyway.
> >
> > Every step towards
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 02:08:34PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Du, 14 mar 21, 12:19:34, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...]
> > in the first place, I'm not the target audience for instant
> > messaging anyway.
>
> Every step towards more privacy is good. Let's not let the perfect be
> the enemy
On Du, 14 mar 21, 12:19:34, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 01:03:49PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > To be clear, far from me to claim Signal is perfect, it's just (in my
> > not so humble opinion) the only *feasible* option to compete with
> > WhatsApp,
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 01:03:49PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
[...]
> To be clear, far from me to claim Signal is perfect, it's just (in my
> not so humble opinion) the only *feasible* option to compete with
> WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, etc.
Dunno. What's wrong with
On Du, 14 mar 21, 09:44:27, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 06:42:01PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > >> > I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can
> > >> > confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really
> > >> > secure/private".
> > >> I
On Du, 14 mar 21, 05:58:42, Tom Yates wrote:
>
> an excellent point. furthermore, you can be summarily thrown off a central
> service, by the provider; it is *much* more difficult to eject someone from
> a federated service.
That can easily backfire: https://xkcd.com/1357/
Kind regards,
Andrei
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 06:42:01PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> > I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can
> >> > confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really
> >> > secure/private".
> >> I guess it's a bit more secure/private than whatsapp because you
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 11:55:24PM +0100, grumpy wrote:
[...]
> How can "sheer luck" be a factor? My non-participation in Facebook
> is due to a conscious decision.
Good for you if you think that all you have and are is due to your
own hard work. In my case, it's different.
Cheers
- t
On Sat, 13 Mar 2021, Stefan Monnier wrote:
I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can
confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really
secure/private".
I guess it's a bit more secure/private than whatsapp because you can see
the code of the client, but AFAICT
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 3:39 AM The Wanderer wrote:
>
> I decided long, long ago (sometime in the first half of the first decade
> of this century, IIRC) that I didn't trust Facebook - initially because
> it and its embedded ads were a notorious vector for malware, later
> because I just didn't
>> > I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can
>> > confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really
>> > secure/private".
>> I guess it's a bit more secure/private than whatsapp because you can see
>> the code of the client, but AFAICT it's still just as
March 13, 2021 7:36:39 PM CET Larry Martell wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:45 AM Brian wrote:
On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 18:27:58 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > If they shun or ostracize you for not being
On Sb, 13 mar 21, 16:15:54, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can
> > confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really
> > secure/private".
>
> I guess it's a bit more secure/private than whatsapp because you can see
> the code of
> I'll stick with Signal for now, at least it's something that I can
> confidently recommend to people as "WhatsApp, but really
> secure/private".
I guess it's a bit more secure/private than whatsapp because you can see
the code of the client, but AFAICT it's still just as centralized :-(
On Sb, 13 mar 21, 09:10:36, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-03-13 at 09:01, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> >> Besides the social part of asking *everybody* *else* to switch I'm
> >> also not aware of a viable . Fortunately most of
> >> the conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are
> >>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:45 AM Brian wrote:
> On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 18:27:58 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are
> > > neither your
>>> Besides the social part of asking *everybody* *else* to switch I'm
>>> also not aware of a viable . Fortunately most of
>>> the conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are
>>> supposed to be encrypted, at least).
>> W.r.t. something else, I don't know anything comparable to
On 2021-03-13 at 09:01, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Besides the social part of asking *everybody* *else* to switch I'm
>> also not aware of a viable . Fortunately most of
>> the conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are
>> supposed to be encrypted, at least).
>
> W.r.t. something
> Besides the social part of asking *everybody* *else* to switch I'm also
> not aware of a viable . Fortunately most of the
> conversations have been moving to WhatsApp (where they are supposed to
> be encrypted, at least).
W.r.t. something else, I don't know anything comparable to Facebook
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 09:24:50AM +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Exactly. "Hey, won't *everybody* switch to using for
> our communication, photo sharing, event coordination, etc.? Why? Because
> I'm (the only one in the group) worried about my privacy on Facebook."
>
> Besides the social
On Vi, 12 mar 21, 18:27:58, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are
> > neither your friends nor your family.
>
> I don't know whether that hard position is
On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 22:45:55 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 06:44:54PM +, Brian wrote:
> > On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 18:27:58 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 06:44:54PM +, Brian wrote:
> On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 18:27:58 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are
> > >
On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 20:27:09 +0100, grumpy wrote:
> >
> > From: The Wanderer
> > Sent: Fri Mar 12 10:38:54 CET 2021
> > To:
> > Subject: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating
> > system?)
>
> From: The Wanderer
> Sent: Fri Mar 12 10:38:54 CET 2021
> To:
> Subject: Social-media antipathy (was Re: How i can optimize my operating
> system?)
>
>
> On 2021-03-12 at 03:27, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> >
On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 19:26:05 +, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2021, at 19:03, Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
>
> > I'm just guessing, but how do they access Facebook and yet not be able
> > to use a telephone?
>
> I think some of you miss some of the advantages of Facebook. It allows
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021, at 19:03, Peter Hillier-Brook wrote:
> I'm just guessing, but how do they access Facebook and yet not be able
> to use a telephone?
I think some of you miss some of the advantages of Facebook. It allows
me to stay loosely in touch with around 120 friends, many of whom I
On 12/03/2021 17:41, Larry Martell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 8:27 AM James H. H. Lampert
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/12/21 8:09 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
>>> I did the same thing - I resisted being on FB for a very long time,
>>> but eventually I had to get on because it was how my family was
>>>
On Fri 12 Mar 2021 at 18:27:58 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are
> > neither your friends nor your family.
>
> I don't know whether that hard
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 8:27 AM James H. H. Lampert
wrote:
>
> On 3/12/21 8:09 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
> > I did the same thing - I resisted being on FB for a very long time,
> > but eventually I had to get on because it was how my family was
> > communicating and I was being left out of the
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:27:23AM -0800, James H. H. Lampert wrote:
[...]
> If they shun or ostracize you for not being on Facebook, they are
> neither your friends nor your family.
I don't know whether that hard position is always viable. I mean,
I managed without Facebook (and *all* the
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:09:45AM -0800, Larry Martell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 7:51 AM Andrei POPESCU
> wrote:
> > Eventually I had to give in, because I was being literally forgotten by
> > a group of friends that were using Facebook for most of their
> > communication (I was the only
On 3/12/21 8:09 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
I did the same thing - I resisted being on FB for a very long time,
but eventually I had to get on because it was how my family was
communicating and I was being left out of the loop. I joined as my dog
only my family knew how to find me. Even to this day
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 7:51 AM Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Eventually I had to give in, because I was being literally forgotten by
> a group of friends that were using Facebook for most of their
> communication (I was the only one without a Facebook account), so I did
> create an account under a
On Vi, 12 mar 21, 04:38:54, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-03-12 at 03:27, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:11:16PM -0800, Weaver wrote:
>
> >> I have never had a Facebook account and never will.
>
> > We (three?) are the invisible Internet Underground \o/
> >
> >
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 05:57:54AM -0500, Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
[...]
> My memory may be failed, but I think the reason I have a Facebook
> account is because I found they had my name listed. To this day, I
> don't understand how websites get away with that. The first person who
> finds your
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
