@speechboy71 Um. I'm relying on NSA's own report. That's not evidence now? 9% according to NSA. Up to 20% in some categories.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel No you're relying on your interpretation of the NSA's own report.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 Um. Have you got another way to interpret it? No one has disputed my actual interpretation. Jsut ... blathered.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel There are many ways to interpret that information. I don't share the view that it is evidence of willful violations3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 Then this is a CLEAR case where I have presented evidence and you have just made claims w/o providing any evidence.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel But perhaps you should call the NSA press office and ask them what that term refers to.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
@speechboy71 You prefer spin to actual evidence. I get that. BUt that means you're ignoring hard evidence for unreliable spin.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Wait I prefer spin! That's rich. Ok, i gotta go.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @speechboy71
Apparently
@speechboy71 thinks press flacks don't provide spin but hard numbers do.1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel I disagree with your interpretation on that hard data. That's it. People can disagree.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@speechboy71 Yup. And they're considered unserious if they can't back up such disagreements.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.