3 ms·

> edit: downvotes are expected. This is a techie forum and techies don't like it when someone points out that technology can't solve every problem. If your ori

> edit: downvotes are expected. This is a techie forum and techies don't like it when someone points out that technology can't solve every problem. If your original comment had made the point that we don't know what we don't know with respect to the NSA's capabilities, rather than impugning people like Moxie Marlinspike, you probably would have fared better.

CamperBob2 12y ago
What are some reasons why I should trust this "Moxie Marlinspike" person any more than I would trust, say, Adrian Lamo? This is neither an appropriate subject, nor an appropriate forum, for ad hominem arguments.
- aptwebapps 12y ago
  I just pointed out that the commenter probably got downvotes as much for the post further up as for the one in with the complaint about them. How is that ad hominiem? I didn't attack the poster, I just made an observation the likely reasons for the reception of the other post. Seriously, is there even one word that I wrote that attacks the poster rather than what he or she wrote? Moxie Marlinspike is well-liked around here, at least as far as I can see. That's enough reason for people to downvote someone who says, "Or because they willingly comply with every government request, unbeknownst to their users, which is not really news-worthy (unlike Levison standing his ground for principles in which he believes)." with nothing to back it up. Perhaps the poster just wanted to mention it as a theoretical possibility, but it comes across as an allegation, at least to me. As for your question about trusting Marlinspike more than Lamo, I'm assuming that you mean Lamo before it was revealed that he had informed on Manning. I.e., Lamo seemed like a good guy and look what he did. I'm not sure how to respond as I don't know any of them personally. Others here could do better. I never said you should trust Marlinspike, I said people here don't like to see him attacked out of the blue, or that is what I meant, anyway.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Seriously, is there even one word that I wrote that attacks the poster rather than what he or she wrote? To clarify what I was getting at, ad hominem doesn't necessarily imply that someone is being attacked or insulted. It just means that the argument, whether pro or con, should be considered without reference to a particular person. Marlinspike's involvement with a particular security software product or service has no bearing on whether I should assume it's uncompromised by the government.
    - aptwebapps 12y ago
      Even so, I wasn't considering or discussing enraged_camel's character or person. I merely pointed why people might have downvoted. "Your other comment was off-putting" is not an ad hominem in the context of the reasons for community disapproval.

CamperBob2 12y ago

What are some reasons why I should trust this "Moxie Marlinspike" person any more than I would trust, say, Adrian Lamo? This is neither an appropriate subject, nor an appropriate forum, for ad hominem arguments.

aptwebapps 12y ago
I just pointed out that the commenter probably got downvotes as much for the post further up as for the one in with the complaint about them. How is that ad hominiem? I didn't attack the poster, I just made an observation the likely reasons for the reception of the other post. Seriously, is there even one word that I wrote that attacks the poster rather than what he or she wrote? Moxie Marlinspike is well-liked around here, at least as far as I can see. That's enough reason for people to downvote someone who says, "Or because they willingly comply with every government request, unbeknownst to their users, which is not really news-worthy (unlike Levison standing his ground for principles in which he believes)." with nothing to back it up. Perhaps the poster just wanted to mention it as a theoretical possibility, but it comes across as an allegation, at least to me. As for your question about trusting Marlinspike more than Lamo, I'm assuming that you mean Lamo before it was revealed that he had informed on Manning. I.e., Lamo seemed like a good guy and look what he did. I'm not sure how to respond as I don't know any of them personally. Others here could do better. I never said you should trust Marlinspike, I said people here don't like to see him attacked out of the blue, or that is what I meant, anyway.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Seriously, is there even one word that I wrote that attacks the poster rather than what he or she wrote? To clarify what I was getting at, ad hominem doesn't necessarily imply that someone is being attacked or insulted. It just means that the argument, whether pro or con, should be considered without reference to a particular person. Marlinspike's involvement with a particular security software product or service has no bearing on whether I should assume it's uncompromised by the government.
  - aptwebapps 12y ago
    Even so, I wasn't considering or discussing enraged_camel's character or person. I merely pointed why people might have downvoted. "Your other comment was off-putting" is not an ad hominem in the context of the reasons for community disapproval.