On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 15:02 -0400, The Doctor wrote: > On 08/29/2013 06:55 PM, > BM-2D9WhbG2VeKsLCsGBTPLGwDLQyPizSqS85@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > Hopefully you can understand why someone might wonder in good > > faith why a third of the Tor Project's 2012 funding appears to be > > disclosed only in PDFs that very few people bother to read (let > > alone understand), or why the Tor Project hasn't updated its > > website to note that its largest funder--from the tax documents, > > at least--is a U.S. Navy grant focused on Intelligence, > > Surveillance, and Reconnaissance." I accept Andrew's explanation at > > face value, but I also think it's fair to say that it's a > > significant oversight. > > This is something I do not understand. > > Primary sources - those PDFs you speak of - are available. Googlable. > Readable. Discussable and understandable. > > Saying that "very few people bother to read (let alone understand)" > them is hardly an argument against Tor, its funding, the uses it is > put to, or the price of stem cell transplants in Chiba in five hundred > years' time. The information is there. If one elects to ignore it > says nothing about Tor. There's a difference between saying "an actual problem exists in the Tor project's funding being dominated by the US government" and saying "it's fine that the US government provides the bulk of the Tor project funding, but that fact causes a serious public relations problem for the Tor project." If you truly don't understand that, I don't think anything anyone says can help you. If you just want to express outrage that people aren't going to comb through PDFs with a rational, perfectly logical mind, then I empathize, but that's the reality of the public we deal with in the here and now. -- Sent from Ubuntu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk