Also, had you read that then you and others would understand SPCMA.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @JakeLaperruque
Also you read the minimization procedures across time? That wasn't apparent either, bc you showed no awareness of changes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
I'm really done with this baseless ad hominim shit. If you want to talk about policy without childish insults I'm happy to
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @emptywheel @JakeLaperruque
Also, please don't accuse me of being "childish" because I read this stuff.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
I'm accusing turning every tweet with a policy disagreement into a personal insult about my intelligence of being childish
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
I have said nothing about your intelligence. You, however, have called me childish even while accusing ME of ad hom. Hmmm.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
You're free to re-read how many times you said I don't understand anything/don't read instead of just saying I disagree
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
It's a factual issue, tho, Jake, not an opinion. The "dragnet" was all mixed together. 215 and SPCMA, with redundancy bt 2.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
The "program" was the 215 authority according to most people debating what we were trying to prohibit
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"Most." Thank you for know acknowledging that I, too, was advocating in 2014.
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.