-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 04/11/2011 02:00 AM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Volodya <Volodya at whengendarmesleeps.org
> <mailto:Volodya at whengendarmesleeps.org>> wrote:
>
> Currently Freetalk is only pseudonymous, which is probably the main
> reason why
> many people will feel strongly against using it (at least exclusively).
>
>
> I think you may misunderstand what pseudonymous means. You are still
> anonymous,
> but you have the ability to prove that you are (anonymously) the same author
> behind different messages.
Pseudonymity is a feature when a user wants that. And it is a bug when one wants
something else. I'm not interested in flame wars at this point, i was just
thinking of the grievances that Frost proper community may have, and how to
resolve those.
But i see that what is desired is to keep Freetalk "pure".
> Pseudonymity is a feature, not a bug. If you don't like it just create a new
> identity every time.
I have already explained why creating a new identity each time is infeasible.
> Ian.
- Volodya
- --
http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast
"None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNonKJAAoJENW9VI+wmYas/qsH/RB0M/mMKyinmVvERsTNbAgI
nbGB9M0u7KmmglrypUB7uP25lL4jtwkC6WuZ2z03k/YV1JHzLVYE4Ksulm/ky+0N
IkyZIPGMr0kLKGgFvXvARnOh6mmIEI3NcQOl14UPJ5S7pJ3a7SZEe3iLpB/IhmYm
dhh9aaF+8HNpHzqkEQnqvmMNSHFlw+xYfiCMZux+kCA/njb+eWraImxUp7O+bEw+
6DzokIenh44uyDI3VUCRy4AVkGPpLecgeJghb3tOTBK9UwNLCSphpWcHai38vDzP
GJwBqEJzPKb5x9qzyPZuRezyiHl1IDmD6Ex6q6DUZydNIPsYzN22BMQc/iht6Bk=
=ocpz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
