|
Petronius -> RE: Maybe leaving CM.. A warning (7/15/2007 9:42:20 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: camille65 (RE: Maybe leaving CM.. A warning - 7/15/2007 8:01:53 AM . p. 13)
Petronius, I'm going to be a bit frank here. Why are you pursuing this with such nasty digs? IMO you have gone way way over the line.
Any point you may have had has been long lost. Honestly, I wish you would simply stop posting to this thread.
That's a fair question, even if I disagree with the premises.
Sometimes people do go "over the line" as camille65 stated, particularly on the Internet. It isn't always easy for them to realize that.
So if I've done things that really put me that way I'd welcome camille65 pointing out the specifics of my objectionable behavior.
I seem to recall having somebody inject the notion that I'm a criminal stalker. Some might consider that "over the line" but I didn't make the complaint.
Another person wrote an elaborate fantasy of almost classical paranoid proportions about how my behavior, my profile, my self-description, and damn near everything I've done throughout my time on c.m. is evidence of my stalker psychology.
Others have presented simple gratuitous insults that I haven't yet had time to fully record.
Another person, seeing some people discuss matters in a style different from throwing bumper stickers at each other, saw things in terms of "shit" (a not uncommon perception in today's culture.)
Some may consider these things "over the line;" I tried to refer to several of them as "irrelevant" (largely because I did not want to check the spelling of "non sequitur" and other Latinisms.)
I don't particularly want to make a big thing of the insults because they are very much a part of the style of argument of Lockit and her supporters. If they are ofttimes irrelevant and insulting they are nonetheless how the people argue. For me to object would be to tell them, in essence, "don't argue the way you argue; argue the way I want you to argue or the way I tell you you should argue."
I could go on listing things. But let me stop this point and finish with another.
People have claimed I propose or denounce things that are almost the opposite of what I've written.
I'm hardly responsible for their delusions. Nor is "delusion" an "over the line" conclusion for somebody who claims I attack all victims as "paranoid."
But I hope camille65 follows through.
If I've slipped "over the line" I should pull back.
And pointing out tu quoque in my defense would be as fallacious as I've accused others of being.
But do point to my real behavior, and not claims about my behavior that others make.
quote:
You seem to refuse to read other posts or if you do read them you conviently skip entire sections.
Done. Jeeeeeeeez.
I'm unaware of any evidence that I refuse to "read other posts" though that has been claimed by people like Lothlauren and I've commented on it.
Points have been made that I have responded to. It is somewhat difficult to deal with this since the same supporters of Lockit can slag me for not writing enough and for writing too much.
Some points made were, I thought, irrelevant. Others contained logical fallacies. Others posed issues I had long since written on. Still others may have been simple insults I have no obligation to waste time on.
However, there might have been some important points that got lost. If cammile65 will point out what she thinks they are I will review matters and might address them.
Camille65 is, at least partly, correct when she mentioned that my original points have gotten lost. That often happens, particularly on the Internet, when adult discourse gives way to insults, jokes, and one-liners.
But since I thought my points important then I think them important now.
In essence, they were:
1) Generic messenger software doesn't have the holes in it Lockit claimed that let's anybody "into your computer."
2) Corporate security, the Colorado legal system, and the FBI do not have the lackadaisical attitude toward security that Lockit claimed;
3) Contrary to Lockit's suggestions, modern security software prevents or disproves the notion that "anything can be traced."
I thought that the discussion would go differently.
I wouldn't have believed that at this date nobody has tried to document the hole Lockit claimed in messenger software. People have done things like point out a bug in Windows XP or some claim of an unexploited problem with Yahoo i.m. But nobody has tried, as far as I can tell, to actually produce evidence to support Lockit's contentions.
I also thought that Lockit's second point would have been considered generic paranoia. It wasn't, to my surprise. But I don't recall anybody presenting evidence that the FBI's claims taking security seriously were the FBI "blowing it out its ass" or any similar thing.
Finally, I thought that any computer-savy person would challenge Lockit's third contention. They didn't. When I mentioned technology like public key encryption and chains of anonymous remailers that were denied, I thought people who disagreed with me would try to show how you can still track messages. Instead they prefer name calling.
|
|
|
|
