Re: Truecrypt 4.1

Carsten Krueger <> wrote in
news:1o25t3fbazblo$.:

> Am 26 Nov 2005 19:37:26 GMT schrieb nemo_outis:
>
>> You really look gift horses VERY deep in the mouth, don't you?
>
> If it's crypto software, you as the author has a very big
> responsibility. And the simplist thing is to say: we have a problem.
> Not happend -> bad.
>
>>PS I look forward to frequenting the forum to discuss Truecrypt that
>>YOU, with your higher sense of public responsibility, will undoubtedly
>>soon put up.
>
> If their is a real problem, it's easy to take
> http://www.ezboard.com/ or something like this.
>
> greetings
> Carsten


You really are a consummate dunce, aren't you?

You seem to have a strange sense of entitlement. The authors of a free
program have exactly ZERO duty or responsibility - least of all to you, a
whining parasite!

And, no, the best thing is *not* to say "we have a problem," the best thing
is to *fix* the problem. And that is exactly what the authors did!
Quickly too!

First, you bitched that the forums were down and now, when someone
sarcastically puts the boots to you, you are dismissive that it is a "real
problem." Hell, you didn't even realize I was skewering you. What a
buffoon!

Regards,

nemo_outis

On 27 Nov 2005 16:08:48 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:

> The authors of a free
> program have exactly ZERO duty or responsibility

That's not true. Just b/c the program is free does not mean that the
authors are devoid of some social responsibility for its operation.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

Ari Silverstein

Ari Silverstein <> wrote in
news:14wx4dadbggiu$.oeovo0i2eooo$.:

> On 27 Nov 2005 16:08:48 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>
>> The authors of a free
>> program have exactly ZERO duty or responsibility
>
> That's not true. Just b/c the program is free does not mean that the
> authors are devoid of some social responsibility for its operation.



Social responsibility? Perhaps you could expand a little on your novel
interpretation of this concept. I'm fascinated to discover what distorted
rationale folks use to convert their dependency and an author's gratuitous
generosity into an ongoing obligation on his part.

Regards,

nemo_outis

On 28 Nov 2005 17:03:27 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:

>>> The authors of a free
>>> program have exactly ZERO duty or responsibility
>>
>> That's not true. Just b/c the program is free does not mean that the
>> authors are devoid of some social responsibility for its operation.
>
> Social responsibility? Perhaps you could expand a little on your novel
> interpretation of this concept. I'm fascinated to discover what distorted
> rationale folks use to convert their dependency and an author's gratuitous
> generosity into an ongoing obligation on his part.
>
> Regards,

Ethics, like politics and religion, is not my cup of circular argument. Our
freeware and licensed products that we distribute come with our sense of
ethical/social responsibility, yours may be devoid of any such values. So
be it.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

Ari Silverstein

Ari Silverstein wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2005 16:08:48 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>
>
>>The authors of a free
>>program have exactly ZERO duty or responsibility
>
>
> That's not true. Just b/c the program is free does not mean that the
> authors are devoid of some social responsibility for its operation.
Dang, you mean they passed a law somewhere when I wasn't looking that I
have to be socially responsible....Someones been smoking wayyyy tooooo
much crack....Wonders where the requirement is that software have any
social responsibility...thinks of a number of cracking packages on the
net....then thinks of the spammer disks being circulated with millions
of e-mail addresses..social responsibility...bah

Winged

Winged

Ari Silverstein <> wrote in
news::

> On 28 Nov 2005 17:03:27 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>
>>>> The authors of a free
>>>> program have exactly ZERO duty or responsibility
>>>
>>> That's not true. Just b/c the program is free does not mean that the
>>> authors are devoid of some social responsibility for its operation.
>>
>> Social responsibility? Perhaps you could expand a little on your
>> novel interpretation of this concept. I'm fascinated to discover
>> what distorted rationale folks use to convert their dependency and an
>> author's gratuitous generosity into an ongoing obligation on his
>> part.
>>
>> Regards,
>
> Ethics, like politics and religion, is not my cup of circular
> argument.


If that is so, one wonders why you raised the issue in the first place.


Our freeware and licensed products that we distribute come
> with our sense of ethical/social responsibility, yours may be devoid
> of any such values. So be it.


My software? This thread is about Truecrypt - and I am not one of its
authors. You'll have to wait for another opportunity to launch baseless
personal attacks on me for failing to support my software.

Regards,

nemo_outis

On 29 Nov 2005 15:35:27 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:

>> Ethics, like politics and religion, is not my cup of circular
>> argument.
>
> If that is so, one wonders why you raised the issue in the first place.

Is it written that all comments must also carry argumentation? I missed
that one.

> Our freeware and licensed products that we distribute come
>> with our sense of ethical/social responsibility, yours may be devoid
>> of any such values. So be it.
>
> My software? This thread is about Truecrypt - and I am not one of its
> authors. You'll have to wait for another opportunity to launch baseless
> personal attacks on me for failing to support my software.
>
> Regards,

If you feel that you are personally attacked over the statements regarding
my and my company's ethical and social considerations, since I made no
judgments as to yours, then that is your problem to deal with. I would
suggest that you might examine why it is you extrapolated, incorrectly,
that I personally attacked you. Why is your sensitivity levels so skewed
when discussions of humanitarianism are addressed?

For your edification, I will quote, again, exactly what I typed above.

*Our freeware and licensed products that we distribute come with our sense
of ethical/social responsibility, yours may be devoid of any such values.
So be it.*

If you would like to expound on what you consider ethical and socially
responsible (in terms of this thread and discussion), I would just love to
hear it.
--
Drop the alphabet for email

Ari Silverstein

Ari Silverstein <> wrote in
news:anj6pxcck5nl$.:

> On 29 Nov 2005 15:35:27 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
>
>>> Ethics, like politics and religion, is not my cup of circular
>>> argument.
>>
>> If that is so, one wonders why you raised the issue in the first
>> place.

> Is it written that all comments must also carry argumentation? I
> missed that one.


Nope, you're free to leave it dangling in the wind. I just wanted to
give you an opportunity to speak to your observation before I dismissed
it as muddle-headed.


>> Our freeware and licensed products that we distribute come
>>> with our sense of ethical/social responsibility, yours may be devoid
>>> of any such values. So be it.
>>
>> My software? This thread is about Truecrypt - and I am not one of
>> its authors. You'll have to wait for another opportunity to launch
>> baseless personal attacks on me for failing to support my software.
>>
>> Regards,
>
> If you feel that you are personally attacked over the statements
> regarding my and my company's ethical and social considerations, since
> I made no judgments as to yours, then that is your problem to deal
> with.


"...***yours** may be devoid of any such values." There your statement
is, bold as brass, just above. Sure sounds like something directed
towards me. And I'm calling you on the attempted smear, Ari!


> If you would like to expound on what you consider ethical and socially
> responsible (in terms of this thread and discussion), I would just
> love to hear it.


Nice try, but no cigar. It was *you* who introduced the asinine concept
of social responsibility. And it was *you* who has repeatedly ducked
explaining your remark despite my invitation to do so, including again
just above. And now you think you can reverse the burden and dump it on
me to present my views on social responsibility? Bullshit! No, Ari,
*you* introduced the topic, so it's still up to *you* to speak to it -
otherwise I summarily dismiss it as unsupported crap.

Regards,

nemo_outis

In article <Xns971C664F6653Fabcxyzcom@127.0.0.1>
"nemo_outis" <> wrote:
>
> Ari Silverstein <> wrote in
> news:14wx4dadbggiu$.oeovo0i2eooo$.:
>
> > On 27 Nov 2005 16:08:48 GMT, nemo_outis wrote:
> >
> >> The authors of a free program have exactly ZERO duty or
> >> responsibility
> >
> > That's not true. Just b/c the program is free does not mean that the
> > authors are devoid of some social responsibility for its operation.
>
>
>
> Social responsibility? Perhaps you could expand a little on your novel
> interpretation of this concept. I'm fascinated to discover what distorted
> rationale folks use to convert their dependency and an author's gratuitous
> generosity into an ongoing obligation on his part.
>

on second thought, please don't start ANOTHER Ari Silverstein
rant! I'm just over the vomiting fit caused by the last one!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer