Brotaris -
Thank you for your reasoned reply. I will address a couple of points you raise, but the bulk of what I want to say at this point is contained in my reply to Vinnie posted above.
Quote:
Originally posted by Brotaris
The three examples of Vinnie's attitudinal posts you copied above all revolve around the one post by you that was deleted, and no more than one. Vinnie's way of expressing himself is a different issue. The issue I raised was that of people trying to create the illusion there's been a lot of censorship in the BearShare forums. You've given only one example of censorship so far - that of deleting your post. Perhaps someone can show one or two more examples, but beyond that.......? |
Knowing that mine was perhaps the only post actually deleted makes it no less infurating. It makes it more so, in fact.
I think the thing that got many of the folks over there so angry was the *threat* of censorship. The "...if you don't shut up and play nice I'm going to shut your mouths for you..." attitude was really obnoxious.
Quote:
As for the reprint of your deleted post:
It heavily accused Bearshare of containing spyware, it attemped to create more paranoia about the encrypted packets, and it accused Vinnie of never giving a "plausible explanation" concerning them.
1) The FACT is (http://www.abctella.com) Bearshare contains no spyware, which is starting to be proven by articles like the one at abctella.com.
2) The encrypted packets are not spy packets, and I'm becoming convinced that no matter now many times Vinnie tries to explain it in I don't know how many ways, certain people are just going to keep badgering the issue just because they like controversy and upheaval - nothing more. Digging around a little more will reveal the information legitimate seekers of answers are looking for.
3) As just stated, Vinnie has given plenty of "plausible explanation", not only about the packets but also about the bundled 'wares in Bearshare. |
The problem I have is not with the packets in the way they are being used today necessarily. It is in the potential that exists for these kinds of packets to be used to fragment the network and destroy the open protocol. As I see it this protocol was intended, by those who first reverse-engineered it and released it publicly, to be an open protocol designed for the use of anyone who was willing to take the time and effort to write a servent to utilise it. Vinnie has made a business decision designed to get his company a leg up on his competition, and I believe that he is doing this at the expense of the network as a whole.