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
don't put words in my mouth. My view of Snowden's character is not the same as yours.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MiekeEoyang
What you're saying is that a report on actual damage would be useful, w/o obviously false facts? if so we agree.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
I cannot agree to your characterization of "obviously false facts" for reasons I explained previously.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MiekeEoyang
That you made claims about "nit-picking" w/o actually having read the criticisms? Those reasons?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @MiekeEoyang
My point was a general theory: HPSCI should not release 3 pages w/details that are easily falsifiable. Easy oversight problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
agreed that HPSCI should fact check its stuff. I just am not in a position to know whether your characterization is accurate.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Fine. Then don't weigh in w/"nitpicking" claims until you've done the work your interlocutors have done? Basic stuff.
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.