That is: if anyone figures out a way to combine end-to-end encryption with web based e-mail (popular as it is).
I take it you are not familiar with the FireGPG browser extension. I can encrypt text, decrypt text and verify signatures on any website with a couple of clicks. There is Gmail integration too.
In Soviet Russia, Shakespeare misspells THEE!
This is the best of its type that I've seen on Slashdot. Too bad I have no mod points today.
Indeed. I came here to point out much the same thing: it may be OK for the mainstream media to dumb down their reporting by using the anthropomorphic term "vegetarian" (a word referring to a philosophy) instead of the correct term "herbivore" (or, in this case, "omnivore"), but this is supposed to be news for nerds.
And yes, it's annoying that a sizeable proportion of the comments modded up as insightful on here will essentially be saying "I eat meat. Some people don't. LOL".
The current leader of the Democratic Party in the US is a [...] socialist.
Sorry, but nothing you ever write can ever have any credibility after that.
We really need a good, OSS cross platform email client that supports GPG.
Use Gmail on Firefox with the FireGPG extension installed.
Except here Essentially, yeah. Except the shutting-up part is optional. (the "optional" part is a qualification, not a denial)
It's neither. It's an exception. The word "except" might be a hint there.
Imagine this. You ask, "did you get everything on the shopping list?". I reply, "yes, except for the apples." Later, you say, "where the hell are the apples? You said you got everything on the list. The "except" part was a qualification, not a denial!"
[You] argued that it was inappropriate for a certain person to say a certain thing (which, in context, is saying shut up since the "certain thing" was the entire content of Phroggy's post)
It looks like you are inadvertently finally answering my question. I asked you what you though "say so" was referring to, and you are claiming here that it means "say all that which Phroggy said". You have it wrong. It actually only refers to the tail end of Phroggy's first paragraph, about the strategy having failed.
"It is possible that they could convey the same message" which is an acknowledgement that your post conveyed the message "shut up" even though you now claim you didn't say that.
I really must have you pegged, because as I wrote that, I strongly suspected that you would respond in this way.
I have identified you as someone with a black-and-white mentality, unable to see grey. For you, "could convey" is incomprehensible. You have to interpret it as "conveys" to make it fit your point. The idea that A could convey B in another context, but not this one, is beyond you. Furthermore, the idea of your opponent politely making a concession to you, granting that something you've said is not entirely stupid because it could make sense in a different context, is not an idea you can grasp. Instead, you interpret it as your opponent letting something slip and then slyly retracting it.
I don't have a "point" as such.
Glad we can agree on something.
Sadly, I also was pretty sure that you'd go for that low blow. And yet I said it anyway, as a gift to you. It's a sign of how badly you're doing that I can hand you rhetorical flourishes on a plate, without fear.
Yes, it affects your credibility, since those with a valid argument don't need to resort to such tactics.
It's not a matter of need. I've already given an example where a valid statement was made, accompanied by a personal attack. Will you conclude that "such tactics" prove that the person has no argument? Was invading Poland therefore OK in your book?
Oh, I made a spelling mistake. Woe is me! Have mercy, ChameleonDave, have mercy.
Woe, eh? The rest of your post is far more woeful. This is reflected in the fact that I devoted a mere two words to correcting the spelling. You, of course, would rather now talk about that, to deflect attention from your faulty arguments.
IANAL, but if the person in question is not a UK citizen, does the UK law, which says the injunction can be sent by fax or email, apply?
Yes, the part where you acknowledge that you agreed to that interpretation twice already.
That simply never happened except in your head.
"it's not for you to say so" means anything substantially different to "shut up". It doesn't and you can't.
It is similar but different. There is about the same similarity as between "don't track dirt onto my carpet" and "take your shoes off". It is possible that they could convey the same message, but they are very different statements in themselves.
If you had a point to explain you've had ample opportunity to do so, yet you haven't.
I don't have a "point" as such. Remember how this started. You decided to criticise me for allegedly telling someone to shut up. That's your "point". All I've been doing is indicating how wrong you are, with your straw men, etc. I am refuting a point.
You disqualified yourself from that when you started the ad hominum arguments.
No, shit-for-brains. I can insult you as much as I like, and it affects nothing else. For example, Hitler was a shifty-looking bastard with a nasty moustache. Am I now disqualified from condemning the invasion of Poland?
Ah, I see. Telling someone to not say something (which you now confirm as we all can see by the first quote in this post) is so completely different to telling them to shut up.</sarcasm>
It's amazing how you manage to latch onto the least relevant part of any given thing. I explain how you (a) put two words together and (b) gave them a certain interpretation; you then defend yourself by arguing that it is reasonable to put the two words together. Can you see what is missing?
Perhaps if I accused you of (a) picking up a gun and (b) shooting a baby in the head with it, you would complain that there's nothing wrong with picking up a gun.
Are you a Wikipedia admin or something? You seem to be one of those people who thinks they sound more convincing if they put a hyperlink to something their opponent has just said.
You have resorted to more and more direct lies. You know full well that I never said "yeah" to the "shut up" question. "Yeah" was my answer to the question of whether people should listen. I specifically said that shutting up was optional, in that very sentence.
It's really amazing how you have latched onto this one "shut up" that you imagine I said. If I'd said it, I wouldn't be saying I hadn't. You, for example, are a lying idiot and should shut the fuck up. See? I don't mind saying it straight out. It's just that I didn't say it where you imagine.
I already interpreted "it's not for you to say so" as "shut up".
Just in case your problem is more idiocy than malice, I'll explain this for you. I didn't ask you to clarify what you imagined "it's not for you to say so" meant. I asked you to clarify what you imagined "say so" meant. Why? Because I already knew that you had decided to grab the "not" and the "say" and splice them together as "shut up", and then interpret that as some boorish desire to silence people in general. But what, if anything, do you think "say so" refers to? "So" has pronominal value here; it refers back to something previously said. I argued that it was inappropriate for a certain person to say a certain thing. If you re-read that passage, you would see what I was talking about, but then everything you've subsequently said would look ridiculous. To avoid this cognitive dissonance, you can't bring yourself to examine this now. You will have no choice but to throw some sort of tantrum, or claim you can't talk to me.
Yes, I know. I disingenuously pretended that you were asking a serious question rather than just snarkily pushing a straw man at me.
Snarky, well ok. Straw man, no way.
People setting up straw men rarely think they are doing so. The deform their opponent's argument in their own head first, and then speak.
I could go on, but I'd have to untangle all the pieces of straw. If you want to persist in this, give a clear and concise explanation of what you think I meant by "say so", and I will then point out how inaccurate it is.