Because you admitted you defended HPSCI w/o reading me or @bartongellman? As "nit-picking"?https://twitter.com/MiekeEoyang/status/777698244063326208 …
What you're saying is that a report on actual damage would be useful, w/o obviously false facts? if so we agree.
-
-
My comment COMPLETELY unrelated to Snowden's character and entirely based on HPSCI releasing report w/obvious misleading claims
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I cannot agree to your characterization of "obviously false facts" for reasons I explained previously.
-
That you made claims about "nit-picking" w/o actually having read the criticisms? Those reasons?
-
My point was a general theory: HPSCI should not release 3 pages w/details that are easily falsifiable. Easy oversight problem.
-
agreed that HPSCI should fact check its stuff. I just am not in a position to know whether your characterization is accurate.
-
Fine. Then don't weigh in w/"nitpicking" claims until you've done the work your interlocutors have done? Basic stuff.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.