[Sohcahtoa82]

> My message is just: "It's overcomplicated. I quickly found an alternative. I don't buy the meme".

That's exactly my point though. Your proposed alternative does not solve the problem.

We didn't reject your alternative because we think you're incompetent. We didn't reject your alternative because we think HTTPS is fine.

We rejected your alternative because it DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. AT ALL. And rather than admit that, you keep defending a point that nobody is arguing against.

[mabynogy]

Again. Fallacies and aggressiveness.

You're talking about who and not what because the "what" is proven to be unbreakable. You're dishonest.

[Sohcahtoa82]

Hold up.

Earlier, I asked you a question to try to lead you to understand why your proposal was wrong, and you told me to answer my own questions and called me patronizing.

You continued to defend a point (OpenSSL and PKI have problems) that nobody argued against.

Even now, you keep acting like I'm telling you wrong simply because you admitted you're not into crypto.

And you're calling ME dishonest?

I give up. At this point, I'm quite certain I'm being trolled. Or you think being told you're wrong is a personal attack. In either case, you're not worth my time.

[mabynogy]

Yes you are. Look at your messages and mines. You're the troll. You use "?" and upper case a lot. I don't. You always try to change subject instead of agreeing on the problem. It's a lack of integrity.

You feel threatened because you invested time in those tools. It's not rational. It's an emotional reaction.

[Sohcahtoa82]

I use question marks because I'm asking questions. By having you consider what the answer would be, it would lead you to understanding why you were wrong, rather than me having to be explicit. It is an attempt, albeit possibly a poor one, to teach you something by getting you to think about it, rather than being told. If you would rather I just tell you why one-time pads don't solve the problems of PKI and the additional code bloat of using OpenSSL, I will gladly do that.

I use upper case because your responses are frustrating me, because you continue to insist that your suggestion is being dismissed simply because you're not into crypto, when I have said over and over that it was dismissed because it is simply not a valid solution to the problem originally brought up.

Your claim that I keep trying to change the subject instead of agreeing on the problem is baffling me. Which problem are you referring to here?

[mabynogy]

It's an emotional response.

IMO you just wanna be loyal to the group you think you belong to (you said "we"). I don't do that. I decide for myself only.

You don't admit your part. You just just justify your feelings. If you feel threatened, it's your problem. Not mine.

[Sohcahtoa82]

sigh

Maybe I'm just entirely misinterpreting your messages, because you're never specific about what you're trying to refute.

> It's an emotional response.

An emotional response to what? Please be clear here. Are you still thinking the rejection of one-time pads as a solution to the problems of OpenSSL and PKI is not based on logic or merit, but somehow based on emotion? If the answer to this is yes, then just come out and say so, because I would gladly explain what is wrong with your proposal.

> IMO you just wanna be loyal to the group you think you belong to (you said "we")

What group do you think I'm trying to be loyal to? The fans of OpenSSL? The people that believe everyone should use HTTPS?

> You don't want to admit your part.

What "part" am I supposed to be admitting?

> You just justify your feelings.

...and?

> If you feel threatened, it's your problem.

I don't feel threatened. Why would I feel threatened? You're the one that is acting persecuted for having a proposal get rejected.