Re: "Once We Squeeze All We Can Out of the United States, It Can Dry Up and Blow Away."

"Jeffrey F. Bloss" <jbloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:5039166.ZDoxbL7oCp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> nemo_outis wrote:
>
> Try as I might, I can't resist...


I dangle only the most alluring bait :-)



>>> And if you care to argue the merits of open source further, I
>>> suggest you take up the thread in a place inhabited by notable
>>> professionals like David Chaum, Ståle Schumacher, Ron Rivest, Niels
>>> Ferguson, Bruce Schneier, Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. Maybe their studied
>>> opinions could turn your head. Obviously, common sense and history
>>> have failed miserably.
>
>> Ahh, the appeal to authority - the desperate last refuge of those who
>> have lost faith in their own arguments and persuasive skills :-)
>
> I'm sorry, but wasn't that you who recently launched into a diatribe
> about wanting names and credentials?
>
> Why yes, I believe it was ya' hypocrite.



Wanting documentary evidence of the credentials, methods, and results of
those conducting a supposed test program is a long way from reverentially
murmuring the names of the computer glitterati. A distinction that only a
dissembler or hypocrite could fail to grasp.



> If you'd have invested a little effort, or even a modicum of thought,
> you might have suspected that some of the names on the above list were
> precisely what you were whining about... authoritative, disinterested
> experts who have/do keep track of tor. Chaum in particular has picked
> it apart pretty thoroughly in the past.



Chaum has done a thorough code review, you say? I'm delighted to hear it
- where can I read all the details of his test methods and results?

And I see that Tor is now up to version 1.0.14, so I suppose there must
be at least 14 such Chaum code reviews. Surely Chaum wouldn't be content
with a single desultory and casual code review, would he? He's in it for
the long haul, right?

Or did you mean he did an architecture review? (In which case open- or
closed-source code is hardly germane, is it?)



> But hell, it's a lot easier to just sling around match book caliber
> psychoanalysis than it is to examine your arguments with a critical
> eye, now isn't it Nemo?


Psychoanalysis? You elevate my noting your running off in disarray as
psychoanalysis? Dear me, you are a sensitive flower. No, it was not I
who ran from the field and was unwilling to press his position. I have
remained here throughout ready to have my arguments viewed with as
critical an eye as anyone wishes to cast on them.

However, I'm delighted that you've screwed up your courage once more and
have rejoined the discussion.


> <sigh>
>
> Don't bother, I've already killed this thread. I'm just too much the
> sucker for a good pointless argument. ;) The open source debate is old
> and tired, and you and I won't solve it here. Ignoring the rest of it
> might at least remove my temptation to ask you what flavor ice cream
> you'd prefer with your pie. :)


Whoops! I spoke too soon about you having regained your courage and
composure. It was not a return to the field but only a brief sally
before running off once again :-)

Regards,


PS Infuriating, eh? And you're a fellow with carefully considered and
worthwhile opinions. I'm considerably rougher on morons and triflers :-)

PPS But, yes, I think we've both made our positions and views clear.
And, having done so, we can rest for a bit, flushed with the warm glow of
the give and take, while others ponder our weighty words of wisdom.


.