We're squarely in conspiracy theory territory here. You can interpret any text to support your conclusion if you're willing to make these leaps, but that is not supporting evidence. Do you really argue that anonymous unsubstantiated claims are strengthened by attributed denials?
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You should pitch that to them as a slogan: BloomBerg Business Week™ -- Does it even matter if it happened?
- 1 more reply
-
-
-
"We have pulled and examined our gear. Here's what should be on the boards. The physical gear matches that. Here is proof. Accodingly, we consider the claims to be bogus, but also note, while we were doing that we found a different problem and fixed that proactively."
-
This was masterfully crafted by a skilled propagandist, you said "our" gear, door is wide open for third party gear. Also, no warrant canary, so a gag order could force you to leave out the gear you knew was affected. Frankly, this just proves you were involved.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You forgot to add that 9/11 was an inside job. Probably carried out by a Sasquatch all amped up on chemtrail juice. Joking aside, I think skepticism on both sides is healthy. There are people on both sides of the story that REALLY want it to be true.
-
I'm still waiting for someone to just, I dunno, go in their server room and check their SuperMicro server for the stuff in the pictures, and then confirm it's not part of the spec or something... Is there something I'm missing that makes that so hard?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
An alien autopsy video. We demand it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.