Because you admitted you defended HPSCI w/o reading me or @bartongellman? As "nit-picking"?https://twitter.com/MiekeEoyang/status/777698244063326208 …
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
no that is the relative weight I give to the general thrust of a damage assessment to the nation vs. things on Snowden.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MiekeEoyang
Then you're saying HPSCI made the wrong emphasis in their report, choosing character assassination over facts? We agree then!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @MiekeEoyang
Again, there's a respectable case to be made. HPSCI instead released 3 pages including some falsifiable facts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
like i said, I want to read the whole thing. Or at least more than those 3 pages. I can't speak to "falsifiable."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @MiekeEoyang
So HPSCI can release 3 pages w/obvious errors for free? That's your idea of oversight? Free 3 pages?
7:49 PM - 18 Sep 2016
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
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.