@DaveedGR Yes. But look at sources. I'd have to look but think Guardian may have accurately stated 850K TS more often than not @20committee
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel I lack time to go back over how Guardian framed it. The point's made often enough that@20committee's explanation is relevant.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DaveedGR
@DaveedGR Sure. But it's a very basic thing. To prove that Guardian does it@20committee provides 2 links proving sometimes they don't.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@20committee That's a fair critique of his links, but Guardian *does* make that claim. Here, for example: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa …2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DaveedGR
@DaveedGR Actually, says they had access to databases, NOT to docs. Rusbridger DOES say it at least once, but@20committee won't fix post.3 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@20committee You're right. It says databases. These say docs: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2013/nov/11/gchq-nsa-leaks … &http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/19/gchq-we-monster-we-cant-control …2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @DaveedGR
@DaveedGR Actually, only the opinion one does, I think, but it's not presented as news. The Rusbridger does tho.@20committee3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@20committee Jenkins: "850,000 American officials and contractors are thought to have access to this material."1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DaveedGR
@DaveedGR Your vindication is that an opinion column says it?@20committee is on FAR stronger ground w/Rusbridger's letter.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@20committee I provided five links between two tweets, all of which make the same factual claim.3 replies 2 retweets 1 like
@DaveedGR So now @20committee has 3 undisputed links to fix his post with! Thanks!
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.