Because you admitted you defended HPSCI w/o reading me or @bartongellman? As "nit-picking"?https://twitter.com/MiekeEoyang/status/777698244063326208 …
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 -
-
-
you are going to give yourself an aneurism if you keep on like this. Take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard for 5.
-
Look. Admit you made "nitpicking" claims from a stance of ignorance. It's not my aneurism. It's you trying to avoid that detail
-
no, my use of "nit pick" is about the relative importance of Snowden's training in the grand scheme of damage to US.
-
OK. Well, I'm of the stance that if HPSCI can't release 3 pages w/o factual errors we should shut them down.
-
I think that's shortsighted. And honestly, you'd be more pissed if it actually happened.
-
I might have agreed before this report. But this report is singularly disqualifying. It's propaganda. Shut it down.
-
Again, there is a credible case to make. HPSCI chose not to do that.
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.