3 ms·

Troll much? Again you're equating two non-equatable things. I'm not sure what your point is as you're starting to not make sense. Where is the binary? You'v

Troll much? Again you're equating two non-equatable things. I'm not sure what your point is as you're starting to not make sense. Where is the binary? You've not pointed it out. Saying that all things are equatable is just silly. Sure you can do it, just like you can mix metaphors, but it makes no sense to do so. Trying to defend the equation of unlawful government abuses and lawful behavior with your bizarre statements is just a prime example of twisted, frothing, hate, with no regard for reasonable discourse.

tmuir 10y ago
That's rich. The very paragraph in which I enumerate the examples that back up my assertion, you claim doesn't make sense. Let's keep the goal posts right where they are. After all, the audience left long ago. You can't understand why the intercept's article points out different leaks and how they show a variety of circumstances. Instead you can only see the two extremes. The "two" in my previous sentence is in reference to my initial assertion of your binary nature. The extremes are government conspiracy and sensationalism. You can't allow for a third or Nth option, because of your tendency to view the world in a binary nature. After all, binary means two possibilities. The actual shades of gray here are that information does not need to be damning proof of government conspiracy to be leak worthy. There is in fact an entire spectrum of leak worthiness. This is the true essence of this article. Even if you don't have direct evidence of an unequivocal treasonous crime being committed, there is value in leaking malfeasance of all sorts.