hacker != cracker (Re: Swartz, Weev & radical libertarian lexicon)

rysiek rysiek at hackerspace.pl
Wed Jan 8 17:16:38 PST 2014


OHAI,

As somebody noted in some other thread here lately, "well, that escalated 
quickly".

Dnia czwartek, 9 stycznia 2014 01:41:23 Cari Machet pisze:
> 1st off if someone is indigenous it is not the same as being native
> polish > mayb u r ignorant of indigenous information AND if an
> indigenous person wants to talk about it 2 times on a list i think
> that is interesting not something to censor
> i am not interested in censoring or being censored that is one reason i am
> interested in opensource and you would think that if someone is interested
> in opensource they would b able to see how that is applicable beyond that
> of software and the ramifications therein

1. I am "indigenous Polish", how does that make me worse or better than you?
2. I am not censoring anything, simply noting that you have already remarked
   on you being a "native American" and that I think we all got that.

I have no idea why you find it necessary to underline that fact so much, but 
hey, be my guest. You have the full right to do so -- as I have the right to 
remark on how unnecessary and completely unrelated to anything discussed in 
this thread it actually is (I'm sure there are better places to discuss this 
particular topic).

> otherwise i really dont need a daddy but thanks anyway - i find your
> comments incredibly rude and purposefully degrading and quite the
> contrary to your last sentence which calls for discussion > i dont
> think you are modeling any kind of way to be open to discussing at all

M'kay, thanks for sharing.

> as for your argument re the road i think it would not hold up in court
> as the road builder would never be held responsible > so in the US the
> state certifies roads afterwords so the state agency in the US anyway
> would be liable so...

Okay, so the party responsible for the road. Fine by me -- in the case of 
software that would be the party that sub-licenses/sells it further. So not 
the guy who wrote the code for Microsoft, but Microsoft as the vendor (at 
least from the end-user perspective).

> attacking someones form in an argument is really easy and doesnt show
> an expansive form from the attacker it just shows they lack a
> formidable argument and hence they loose credibliity and dont engage
> ethics which is really sad

On the other hand, requiring the other party to an argument to formulate their 
thoughts clearly and intelligibly helps the discussion and allows for better 
understanding, and better argumentation. I fail to see how asking you to write 
in a more clear manner, especially on a list many subscribers of which are not 
native English speakers, is an "attack on a form".

Can we now please leave the linguistics and nationalities behind us and focus 
on what could be more aptly considered on-topic here?

-- 
Pozdr
rysiek
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20140109/29722ecd/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list