You 100% misread my tweet, Tim. Please go back and try again. @Thomas_Drake1 @Snowden
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
.
@emptywheel@Thomas_Drake1 I read it very clearly, Marcy. I just asked a direct question. It deserves a response.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TimothyS
You: "Do you question Snowden's contention" Me: "I disagree [w/Snowden, OBVIOUSLY], yeah."
@Thomas_Drake11 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @TimothyS
Rest of thread makes absolutely ZERO sense reading it as you have. But I get that's the gimmick here.
@Thomas_Drake11 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
.
@emptywheel Sorry, but there's no "gimmick" here. My question is crystal-clear. I don't believe@snowden & co's contention of zero harm.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
.
@emptywheel Wow. Ask a simple question, get a totally convoluted answer with personal attacks. I'm not impressed, Marcy.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TimothyS
Yes Tim. Everyone watching read it correctly but you, yet you are not impressed. Yes, Tim.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @TimothyS
The funnier thing is you apparently want specific language rather than my opinion (which you've got 2X now). Why?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @TimothyS
Question of Snowden's impact requires some nuance (I've written shit-ton abt OFFICIAL claims), not gimmicks.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
So you could choose to go to what I've written but appear, instead, to be interested in a gimmick answer on Twitter, not nuance.
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.