I don't think I concur that Bloomberg being right helps DHS. I can totally think of reasons that DHS would want to avoid panic. In your experience working with DHS, is it normal for them to deny a statement not directly involving them like this?
-
-
We have anonymous sources making unsubstantiated wild claims to reporters with a track record of getting it wrong. On the other side, we have unprecedented water-tight denials - on the record and attributed to very senior sources... In your opinion, pretty much even stevens?
3 replies 5 retweets 48 likes -
Replying to @taviso @zackwhittaker and
I don't think Amazon's denial was watertight. It was very carefully worded.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @TProphet @zackwhittaker and
I work at a big corp, I'm telling you right now, I couldn't get you an on the record statement confirming water is wet approved that was more direct than Amazon's denial.
2 replies 7 retweets 55 likes -
Amazon's statement was masterfully crafted. I'm not surprised. Amazonians are really good writers. That's in their culture. There is also a really big loophole. They aren't saying it didn't happen. Just that they didn't know anything and didn't, themselves, find anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes
They didn't rule out the supernatural, or aliens either. The body of evidence for this happening is an anonymous report to journalists with a history of getting it wrong. The evidence against it is a borderline tinfoil-hat analysis of Amazon's word choice.... come on?
-
-
Let's just say that after seeing enough carefully parsed NSA denials, I'm highly skeptical of any statement that could be unequivocal ... and isn't.
0 replies 0 retweets 6 likes - 14 more replies
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.