~by rallier; frying pans and fire and bathwater and babies; Lauda is a cat!
⭐ Merited by Foxpup (6)
Damn it, me, you need to tell me about these interesting threads if I am to shill for you, or whatever. At this point, I am uncertain as to whether I am your sockpuppet alt, or your shill... Anyway, I wish that I had seen this over two weeks ago.
Re OP: "~by rallier" is obvious and done...
I may not be so magnanimous. The accusations of manipulating the Default Trust system and making false accusations are backed by nothing other than the observation that, um, you have a trust list, and you use it. The incomprehensibly written recommendation that others avoid [making] a connection (or [working]) with you is based on nothing at all. In sum, the text of the tag does not even adequately allege any wrongs justifying negative feedback. Therefore: The tag is frivolous within its four cornerseven if, arguendo as to fact, one makes all assumptions against you and in favour of by rallier.
As such, it as is transparently a ham-handed attempt to inflict reputational damage in retaliation for your quite ordinary and unremarkable decision that you dont want to see someones tags. That is defamatory and dishonest. Moreover, it sets a horrid precedent: Imagine if everybody who was ~excluded by someone else issued negative feedback on that basis!
I understand that you dont want to look retaliatory; but I think that the substance of the matter may well warrant negative feedback, and anyway, I dont have that problem.
Eh, I am too busy with art and τὴν τέχνην to weigh that out now. Now, lets see what other interesting bits this thread has turned up...
The old system was better.
^^^ THIS!
Of course, the old system was not perfect. I myself disliked the old DT; I am moderately critical of how theymos chose to run it. But...
Because I am oft accused of walls of text, here is the TL;DR:
On the Official Opinions of ALL WOMEN!
Translation: I am a basement-dwelling doofus who does not know any women, but has Read On The Internet many prejudicial broad*-brush statements about the Official Opinions of ALL WOMEN® on the subject of womankind. No exceptions!
If the only women whom you know as the absolute representatives of all women are largely obese, mostly American dumb-goose twitlibs with blue checkmarks, many of whom have matching hair, then your wretched incomprehension of womankind may exclude more than one Laura; e.g. from my index of authors named Laura:
Eh, maybe Mrs. Marholms (emphatically, Mrs. Marholms) hubby wrote that for her. Theres no way that some dumb broad could think like that, yes? Well, that is logically equivalent to what you say about Lauda.
Also, by the way, the single most controversial line that Nietzsche ever wrote about women was suggested to him by one of his smart female friendsI infer for the lulz, and because it takes one to know one. Appropriately, he put these fine words into the mouth of a wise old woman. To avoid feeding the idiot online misogynists with feminist-mommy issues (the mirror-image counterpart of fatherless twitlibs), I will only quote it in the original German:
The first time that I read that, I laughed aloud: For I have had actual, three-dimensional women make similar remarks to mein the context of their own intimate relationships with me. It was mutually amusing, in the manner of, Hah, hahonly serious! (Also, it was evidence that some women can be quite introspective, and also even rational (!). ;-)
So, fuck off with your sexist declarations about the Official Opinions Of ALL WOMEN, and your exclusionary attitude toward women who do not share those opinionsunless, perhaps, you have scientific evidence that female brains are biologically incapable of holding other opinions?
* LOL.
Laudable Laughter
Same here. :-)
Lauda has tits... manboobs or double D's ill let your imagination decide
LOL.
Opsec protip: My reading list is generally private; thus, having long ago started and settled on a good theme, I shall stick to it:
On the Identity and Opsec of the Cat
Laura refuses to confirm or deny the accusation that she is female. I have repeatedly interrogated her, in private. Even when I threaten her with rubberhose cryptanalysis of her sex, all that she will tell me is, Im a cat. Quote-unquote.
For her part, thats not some perverse online game: It is opsec by someone who is totally uninterested in the types of online relationships for which that question would be relevant. (My own relationship with Lauda is strictly one of arts and letters and Bitcoin maximalism, some mild flirtation notwithstanding.)
One whole bit of identifying information is thus ambiguous. A naïve view is that this simply doubles Laudas anonymity set. In practice, relatively few women have Laudas skills and interests. If Lauda is a man, then the ambiguity increases his anonymity set by maybe a tenthand misdirects attention into that tenth, which should help confuse intersection attacks across other partitions of his anonymity set. If Lauda is a woman, then the ambiguity increases her anonymity set by at least tenfoldplus wards off unwanted come-ons (a reason for which intelligent women on technical forums sometimes even declare themselves male). Either way, it is also a neat $5 monkey-wrench tossed into any attempts to profile Lauda.
Well, that is my analysis in the manner of an informal peer review. Lauda reserves a wise silence on the subject.
I myself profile Lauda as female based on a consistent pattern of observed behaviours that are archetypally feminine. E.g., Lauda treats Bitcoin, Core, and the Bitcoin Forum with the same unlimited, self-sacrificing feminine devotion with which the brilliant primatologist Dr Dian Fossey treated her gorillas and their conservation. When a man is devoted to a cause, his devotion generally manifests quite differently. Also, IRL, I have more or less (cough) known some élite, highly intelligent, decidedly non-liberal women who behaved almost identically to Lauda. It is the type who would not give even the time of day to the likes of Timelord2067; thus, perhaps his shallow, sexist assumptions about the categorical opinions of all women may be understandablealbeit still inexcusable.
FWIW. I am usually astute in such matters. If Lauda is actually a man, then I owe him a beer for a hell of a defencive psy-op. Whereas if Lauda is actually a woman, then... I owe her a beer for a hell of a defencive psy-op. Cheers, kitty.
Image source: I have not actually tried this; now, meow, how I want to!
Re OP: "~by rallier" is obvious and done...
For transparency, my response is a neutral rating:
I may not be so magnanimous. The accusations of manipulating the Default Trust system and making false accusations are backed by nothing other than the observation that, um, you have a trust list, and you use it. The incomprehensibly written recommendation that others avoid [making] a connection (or [working]) with you is based on nothing at all. In sum, the text of the tag does not even adequately allege any wrongs justifying negative feedback. Therefore: The tag is frivolous within its four cornerseven if, arguendo as to fact, one makes all assumptions against you and in favour of by rallier.
As such, it as is transparently a ham-handed attempt to inflict reputational damage in retaliation for your quite ordinary and unremarkable decision that you dont want to see someones tags. That is defamatory and dishonest. Moreover, it sets a horrid precedent: Imagine if everybody who was ~excluded by someone else issued negative feedback on that basis!
I understand that you dont want to look retaliatory; but I think that the substance of the matter may well warrant negative feedback, and anyway, I dont have that problem.
Eh, I am too busy with art and τὴν τέχνην to weigh that out now. Now, lets see what other interesting bits this thread has turned up...
DT is manipulated so easily these days,
The old system was better.
^^^ THIS!
Of course, the old system was not perfect. I myself disliked the old DT; I am moderately critical of how theymos chose to run it. But...
Because I am oft accused of walls of text, here is the TL;DR:
theymos-dictated Ancien Régime DT:
Democratic DT:
Democratic DT:
And:
Basic sanity of the trust system:
RTFM:
RTFM:
Et cetera...
THIS SPACE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT NULL.
On the Official Opinions of ALL WOMEN!
I've said time and time again if you look at what Lauda says about women, then you'll know that Lauda is a man.
Translation: I am a basement-dwelling doofus who does not know any women, but has Read On The Internet many prejudicial broad*-brush statements about the Official Opinions of ALL WOMEN® on the subject of womankind. No exceptions!
If the only women whom you know as the absolute representatives of all women are largely obese, mostly American dumb-goose twitlibs with blue checkmarks, many of whom have matching hair, then your wretched incomprehension of womankind may exclude more than one Laura; e.g. from my index of authors named Laura:
Quote from: Laura Marholm (1899)
[Woman] is always whatever man desires; woman or not woman, just as he wishes. Dear gentlemen and leaders, do not deceive yourselves and us! Your books are very good, very instructive and beneficial,but what a pity that you do not know us in the least! [...] You can make us what you will;courtesans, amazons, reasonable beings; holy, learned or idiotic wives and virgins; for we yield to every pressure of your finger and it is our nature to follow where you lead. But whatever you make us, we are not so happy, nor yet so unhappy as you imagine; for what you consider happiness for us is not our happiness, and what you look upon as unhappiness in us is not our unhappiness. For while man has in almost all ages oppressed woman, woman has, in nearly every age, influenced man.
Eh, maybe Mrs. Marholms (emphatically, Mrs. Marholms) hubby wrote that for her. Theres no way that some dumb broad could think like that, yes? Well, that is logically equivalent to what you say about Lauda.
Also, by the way, the single most controversial line that Nietzsche ever wrote about women was suggested to him by one of his smart female friendsI infer for the lulz, and because it takes one to know one. Appropriately, he put these fine words into the mouth of a wise old woman. To avoid feeding the idiot online misogynists with feminist-mommy issues (the mirror-image counterpart of fatherless twitlibs), I will only quote it in the original German:
Quote from: Nietzsche
Gieb mir, Weib, deine kleine Wahrheit! sagte ich. Und also sprach das alte Weiblein:
Du gehst zu Frauen? Vergiss die Peitsche nicht!
Also sprach Zarathustra.
Du gehst zu Frauen? Vergiss die Peitsche nicht!
Also sprach Zarathustra.
The first time that I read that, I laughed aloud: For I have had actual, three-dimensional women make similar remarks to mein the context of their own intimate relationships with me. It was mutually amusing, in the manner of, Hah, hahonly serious! (Also, it was evidence that some women can be quite introspective, and also even rational (!). ;-)
So, fuck off with your sexist declarations about the Official Opinions Of ALL WOMEN, and your exclusionary attitude toward women who do not share those opinionsunless, perhaps, you have scientific evidence that female brains are biologically incapable of holding other opinions?
* LOL.
Laudable Laughter
This really made me laugh out loud for a second time 
Same here. :-)
I've said time and time again if you look at what Lauda says about women, then you'll know that Lauda is a man.
Lauda has tits... manboobs or double D's ill let your imagination decide
LOL.
Opsec protip: My reading list is generally private; thus, having long ago started and settled on a good theme, I shall stick to it:
Doth this happen, because with women nothing is impossible? Nietzsche
On the Identity and Opsec of the Cat
I said for a second time because the first post I made was deleted by moderators but hopefully this one will stay. There is no doubt people can use a facade to create a persona but ther eis no reason to doubt Lauda being female. If Lauda says she is female then I am happy to accept it, unequivocally.
Laura refuses to confirm or deny the accusation that she is female. I have repeatedly interrogated her, in private. Even when I threaten her with rubberhose cryptanalysis of her sex, all that she will tell me is, Im a cat. Quote-unquote.
Whilst travelling on business in Carpathia,
I doxed Lauda:
.jpg/472px-Carpathian_Lynx_7_(13366120813).jpg)
I doxed Lauda:
For her part, thats not some perverse online game: It is opsec by someone who is totally uninterested in the types of online relationships for which that question would be relevant. (My own relationship with Lauda is strictly one of arts and letters and Bitcoin maximalism, some mild flirtation notwithstanding.)
One whole bit of identifying information is thus ambiguous. A naïve view is that this simply doubles Laudas anonymity set. In practice, relatively few women have Laudas skills and interests. If Lauda is a man, then the ambiguity increases his anonymity set by maybe a tenthand misdirects attention into that tenth, which should help confuse intersection attacks across other partitions of his anonymity set. If Lauda is a woman, then the ambiguity increases her anonymity set by at least tenfoldplus wards off unwanted come-ons (a reason for which intelligent women on technical forums sometimes even declare themselves male). Either way, it is also a neat $5 monkey-wrench tossed into any attempts to profile Lauda.
Well, that is my analysis in the manner of an informal peer review. Lauda reserves a wise silence on the subject.
I myself profile Lauda as female based on a consistent pattern of observed behaviours that are archetypally feminine. E.g., Lauda treats Bitcoin, Core, and the Bitcoin Forum with the same unlimited, self-sacrificing feminine devotion with which the brilliant primatologist Dr Dian Fossey treated her gorillas and their conservation. When a man is devoted to a cause, his devotion generally manifests quite differently. Also, IRL, I have more or less (cough) known some élite, highly intelligent, decidedly non-liberal women who behaved almost identically to Lauda. It is the type who would not give even the time of day to the likes of Timelord2067; thus, perhaps his shallow, sexist assumptions about the categorical opinions of all women may be understandablealbeit still inexcusable.
FWIW. I am usually astute in such matters. If Lauda is actually a man, then I owe him a beer for a hell of a defencive psy-op. Whereas if Lauda is actually a woman, then... I owe her a beer for a hell of a defencive psy-op. Cheers, kitty.
Image source: I have not actually tried this; now, meow, how I want to!