Facepalming isn't sneering -- in that loose of a definition, the above post itself is sneering. You are misrepresenting the thread: you made a reply demanding

Facepalming isn't sneering -- in that loose of a definition, the above post itself is sneering. You are misrepresenting the thread: you made a reply demanding I enumerate any legal professionals who had their careers ruined due to parallel reconstruction, in response to me answering someone's question about why the 5th circuit decision yesterday mattered in practice. You also didn't attempt to follow-up at all, you weren't doing earnest inquiry, there wasn't a crowd of people. Just you, bringing up an unrelated topic to police me answering someone's question, via agreeing with them that it can still happen mechanically, but it won't in practice, because police / warrant judge / tech company / DA chain is diffuse enough that they can't effectively collude to hide from the trial judge they used a geofencing warrant. You've replied here a few times, as I note in my reply to one of the others: Nothing from me will be good enough for you on this topic, I'm afraid. I'm sorry I can't meet your expectations, I recognize that it is on me, not you. You read my posts as dishonest personal attacks, and its due to my cocksure verbiage coupled to my inability to definitively rule out the possibilities you raise.