Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] I am really getting sick of this. Goodbye

[Mark H Weaver]

Go away troll, or else I'll take steps to ban you from this list.
This is your final warning.

      Mark


<address@hidden> writes:

> I see what you're doing here, you're playing game of questions with me
> and being very evasive while pretending to have no idea what I am
> talking about, while also simultaneously giving yourself the unfounded
> excuse to back up your own flawed argument that "I'm wrong" for "no
> mentioned facts or reasons" without actually providing evidence that
> supports your claims against me even though I'm the one always
> pointing out the truth because I want people to wake up.  How
> convenient that you never show my previous full reply in your messages
> to me so that people find it more difficult to follow this wild goose
> chase back and forth you are trying to play me with. I said it before
> and I'll say it again, if you don't like me for any reason, mark my
> emails as spam. I honestly do not enjoy our interactions and I
> politely request that you Julie, personally mark me as spam once and
> for all. But I know you wont, because that doesn't accomplish your
> goals does it? I'm not sorry and nobody is going to shut me up. I love
> helping people so please I kindly ask that you prove me wrong and
> don't message me again.
>
> 24. Mar 2017 09:01 by address@hidden:
>
>  On 03/24/2017 07:09 AM, address@hidden wrote:
>
>  I point out your missteps in logic
>
>  Where did you do this, and what "missteps in logic" are you talking about?
>
>  you suddenly shift your argument if I may call it that to the opposite of 
> what you appeared to originally intend to say.
>
>  What did you perceive me as originally intending to say, and what part
>  of my message made you perceive that?
>
>  you don't actually want to provide a logical argument that shows any facts 
> and reasons why what I said wasn't good enough for you.
>
>  I didn't respond to your email to argue against it. I responded to your
>  email to ask you to stop flooding my mailbox, as at the time you had
>  sent eight emails in quick succession for no good reason.
>
>  I did of course argue against what you were saying, but it's a very
>  simple argument that you could easily refute if you are on the side of
>  truth:
>
>  1. There is no evidence to support your hypothesis.
>
>  2. There is no reasonable motivation for any known party to do what you
>  suggest.
>
>  I can't prove that there isn't a conspiracy going on any more than you
>  could prove that the tooth fairy isn't real. But you can either show
>  evidence that supports your hypothesis, or at least start by showing a
>  credible motivation someone could have to want to sabotage IceCat and
>  not, say, Tor Browser.
>
>  I love it how everyone is mentioning TOR but they all fail to mention the 
> important details like how extremely slow it is, the lack of functionality, 
> and how many times it has been
>  compromised. thanks for the suggestion but I'm very proud of what the 
> creators of icecat have done.
>
>  Matters of convenience like how fast the browser don't matter in this
>  discussion, because if a malicious party wants to sabotage users'
>  privacy, they will go for the more popular option no matter how
>  convenient it is for the users, and given the lack of attention IceCat
>  has gotten anywhere outside of our little circle and the boost in
>  attention Tor Browser has gotten from the Snowden revelations, Tor
>  Browser appears to be more popular. If you have any evidence to show
>  that IceCat is actually more popular than Tor Browser, please feel free
>  to present it.
>
>  In what way is IceCat more secure than the Tor Browser Bundle? These are
>  the facts I can see:
>
>  1. IceCat is frequently behind its upstream, Firefox, on updates.
>
>  2. IceCat includes LibreJS, which selectively stops scripts from
>  executing based on the presence or absence of a license statement in a
>  particular format. This means that any malicious party can convince
>  IceCat to execute JavaScript simply by lying about the license, or
>  (because the JavaScript infrastructure doesn't enable forking of a
>  website's JavaScript code, and LibreJS doesn't even support blocking any
>  scripts it detects as libre) simply making the script libre and keeping
>  in the malicious functionality. I explained this in my essay,
>  "Proprietary JavaScript: Fix, or Kill?"[1] Therefore, LibreJS cannot
>  reliably be protective against any sort of malicious JavaScript code;
>  its only protective effect is "security through obscurity".
>
>  3. When using Tor, IceCat blocks all requests for things like images,
>  unlike Tor Browser. This makes it possible for any website to
>  distinguish between Tor Browser and IceCat simply by embedding an image
>  onto the Web page and seeing whether or not the image was sent at the
>  time the Web page was loaded.
>
>  4. Other than LibreJS, which (as I explained) can easily be subverted,
>  IceCat offers no protection against malicious scripts except for what is
>  built into Firefox already. In particular, NoScript is not included.
>  Even when it allows all scripts to execute, NoScript provides certain
>  security features, such as protection against XSS attacks, which Tor
>  Browser benefits from.
>
>  5. IceCat and Tor Browser share the same upstream, Firefox ESR. This
>  means that, all other factors being equal, they should share the same
>  vulnerabilities. The least vulnerable of the two should be the one that
>  gets updated most promptly and most frequently, and that is Tor Browser.
>
>  Put together, all of these facts paint a picture that Tor Browser is not
>  only more private and more secure than IceCat, but substantially so. If
>  you have any evidence to the contrary, please show me what that evidence is.
>
>  [1] https://onpon4.github.io/other/kill-js
>
>  -- 
>  Julie Marchant
>  https://onpon4.github.io
>
>  Protect your emails with GnuPG:
>  https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org
>
>
> --
> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org