4 ms·

>I explained it. Now you're insisting you're an expert, don't need anyone's advice I never said that I'm an expert or that I don't need advice. I merely defen

>I explained it. Now you're insisting you're an expert, don't need anyone's advice I never said that I'm an expert or that I don't need advice. I merely defended myself against a personal attack by you (accused me of not thinking deeply and not knowing basic things about the US government structure). The point of the OP was that I noticed a problem, couldn't find a solution and wanted to see what thoughts others had on the issue. You came in with a personal attack and an answer that stopped at the first hurdle- "this would be difficult to secure." Yes a solution would have to answer a tough security question, but I don't think this is a hurdle that can't be overcome. Maybe it is an issue of age, but when I'm encountered with an inefficient system I prefer to figure out how it can be changed/improved rather than saying "it is reality, deal with it."

lutusp 14y ago
> I merely defended myself against a personal attack by you (accused me of not thinking deeply and not knowing basic things about the US government structure). I did nothing of the kind. Both claims are false. Locate where I accused you of not thinking deeply, or of not knowing the structure of the U.S. government. The reasons for the above are legion. First, there is no "you" -- I'm conversing with a nickname, not a person. You're personally quite immune from anything I might choose to say to a nickname. Second, I didn't accuse you of anything. If I say "It's raining today", is it implicit in my remark that you are ignorant of that fact, and therefore my having mentioned the rain is an accusation of your ignorance? You need to think about how you communicate online.