3 ms·

Even if he were especially tense during those moments (and I'm not seeing it, relative to his tension throughout the interview), your interpretation is a huge s

Even if he were especially tense during those moments (and I'm not seeing it, relative to his tension throughout the interview), your interpretation is a huge stretch from a tiny piece of data. There are many alternative explanations. The moments you cite are exactly those where he's laying down google's gauntlet. He was on national TV, claiming that it is no longer possible to do business with a powerful nation because its representatives have been suppressing opponents to its totalitarian policies with highly illegal and unethical tactics. I would be pretty tense under those circumstances, too. Every person of Chinese descent I met after that, I would be wondering what they think of me.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
andreyf 17y ago
your interpretation is a huge stretch from a tiny piece of data Did you read the article? That's exactly why I source the NYT and Google's blog for more data - I'm not saying I read that this was a broad attack against 34 international corporations spanning nearly all major industries because they guy flinched one way or another, I'm saying I noticed him flinch (without the sounds on) on questions which happen to also be half-truths by the content of his blog post.
- Estragon 17y ago
  Yes, your argument was a non sequitur. Just because they were also apparently targeting industrial espionage, it doesn't follow that dissidents weren't "clearly targeted." Both of the Drummond quotes you highlight are completely in line with your subsequent analysis.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    it doesn't follow that dissidents weren't "clearly targeted Right. Half-truths meaning "these are not lies, yet they aren’t something Drummord is completely comfortable about, either". I'm saying his statements are true, but only a minor part of the whole picture - that this was a much bigger attack, and Chinese dissidents were a minor target.
    - Estragon 17y ago
      Yes, and now we're back to the "huge stretch" I claimed before.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

andreyf 17y ago

your interpretation is a huge stretch from a tiny piece of data Did you read the article? That's exactly why I source the NYT and Google's blog for more data - I'm not saying I read that this was a broad attack against 34 international corporations spanning nearly all major industries because they guy flinched one way or another, I'm saying I noticed him flinch (without the sounds on) on questions which happen to also be half-truths by the content of his blog post.

Estragon 17y ago
Yes, your argument was a non sequitur. Just because they were also apparently targeting industrial espionage, it doesn't follow that dissidents weren't "clearly targeted." Both of the Drummond quotes you highlight are completely in line with your subsequent analysis.
- andreyf 17y ago
  it doesn't follow that dissidents weren't "clearly targeted Right. Half-truths meaning "these are not lies, yet they aren’t something Drummord is completely comfortable about, either". I'm saying his statements are true, but only a minor part of the whole picture - that this was a much bigger attack, and Chinese dissidents were a minor target.
  - Estragon 17y ago
    Yes, and now we're back to the "huge stretch" I claimed before.