Re: Paid performance-tor option?

[Scott Bennett <bennett@xxxxxxxxxx>]

     On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:49:50 +0700 Roy Lanek <lanek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
again quoted me without attribution:
>> I have no idea what that is about, much less how it is supposed to be
>> relevant to the discussion.
>
>Then "let me attempt to clarify." By your own words:
>
>> the server operator who wishes to continue to be allowed to run the server
>> should avoid drawing unwanted management attention to the server
>
>Yet enunciating "...but we're helping Chinese dissidents..." is *jokingly*
>[slap in the butt of the waitress among the mob: --hey, it's normal!--]
>fine for you; doesn't let you raise even one eyebrow about its legal [apropos
>the abc of the US administrator ... never mind of the other implications, I
>suspect you know a shit on China and the Chinese] for you; nor does attract
>unwanted "management" [nice pleonasm] " attention" ... yes?

     Is there some reason you don't write coherent paragraphs?  I really
cannot parse the above bit of your writing.  Try writing straightforward
sentences without embedded asides.  Put the asides into separate, complete
sentences instead.  That usually helps readers to overcome language translation
problems.  N.B. that I am not objecting to or contradicting what you're saying
above; rather I simply can't figure out what you are saying.  I see words and
punctuation, but they don't fit together into sentences.
>
>Dulcis in fundo, and by surplus, you ... how to say, *give away* your
>*secrets*: now the "bosses" [or their *spies*] ... know. :)

     You're still not making sense.  I can't respond to whatever arguments
you may be making if I can't figure out what they are.  My apologies, but
I am definitely not telepathic.
>
>> let me say that I do not know which country's/countries' environment(s)
>> inform(s) your perspective, so I will try to explain what a tor server
>> operator here in the U.S. may well be up against.

     Why did you quote only snippets out of context from my earlier response
and quote them out of sequence as well?
>
>Huh?! But what would it change by the way?! Are you so screwed up in the
>U.S.?, I am sad for you. Well, then it's about time to change with your

     Yes, the U.S. is thoroughly screwed up, but that wasn't what I was
saying.  I was simply stating that what I was about to present was what a
tor server operator in the U.S. has to consider.  tor server operators in
other countries may have different things to consider.  Because I don't
know your life history w.r.t. where you have lived and worked with computers
and networking, I can't begin to relate the situation here to whatever you
may have encountered wherever you are.

>situation of the gullible and the know-nothing of the planet: in less than
>one month there will be the _eight_ *anniversary* of an event that has ruined
>[ruined officially, as a date, I mean ... actually it has started long before
>it] MUCH LIFE on the planet.

     Oh?  In August or September 2000?  What event are you referring to?
>
>(Just tell me that you, alas, know zero on 9/11 too, not only on the Chinese;

     Where did you get an idea like that?  I don't recall anything about it
one way or another appearing in this thread.

>but understand elementary mathematics and physics; then I would post a list

     How advanced are you counting as elementary?  I got as far as ODE, time
series data analysis, and a M.S. in atmospheric sciences w/grad minor in
physical oceanography.  Is that enough?

>of 3-4-5 basic URLs on where to get *convincing* information ... information
>which you should have sought by yourself already in all those years, but never
>mind.)

     If you would stop ranting and raving long enough to make clear what's
bothering you, perhaps I could address it.  At present, it's not clear what
you're going on about, although I have some suspicions about the above.
However, if it doesn't pertain to issues regarding tor or network anonymity
in general, perhaps a continued discussion should happen off the list.
>
>Hence if you deny that 9/11 and that what Tor is trying to sustain, that is,
>Tor directly [theoretically and not] too, are unrelated, then you would be
>telling lies; you could look for more *enlightenment* on this topic "off topic"
>[pun intended] by discovering who. e.g., Alfred Rosenberg has been, and what
>he has made meanwhile (we are not going to believe that a man with clipped
>mustache has made all by himself).
>
>Oh, and don't forget: world population is more than six billion, the planet's
>navel is not situated in the U.S.

     Whatever it might mean for a planet to have a navel, I get the impression
you're more interested in a forum in which to vent some unspecified ire,
rather than to discuss tor.  As noted earlier, further discussion needs to
be removed from this list.  Here's another point:  entering into a comversation
assuming that the other participants are opposed to your views, rather than
finding out what they think or might know about something is not likely to
be terribly productive.
>
>Now reply that my English is unreadable. (Which it may be truly,
>unfortunately.)
>
     See above.


                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett at cs.niu.edu                              *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good  *
* objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments *
* -- a standing army."                                               *
*    -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790         *
**********************************************************************