4 ms·

I think I see where you’re getting tripped up. You’ve taken my use of ‘adversarial’ to mean I believe the interviewee is personally being investigated or prosec

I think I see where you’re getting tripped up. You’ve taken my use of ‘adversarial’ to mean I believe the interviewee is personally being investigated or prosecuted for a crime. That’s not what that means. My mention of federal obstruction was just an example to illustrate why the FBI might be investigating at all. It was a hypothetical meant to show that the investigation likely concerns criminal activity surrounding the protest, not the protest or his speech itself. I’m never suggested the person interviewed is guilty or even a suspect. He’s a lead, someone questioned because he may have information relevant to a broader investigation. By now it should be clear that the only nonsense here has come from your misinterpretation and bad faith assumptions. Do you have any more bullshit for me to correct, or are you actually interested in understanding what I said?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> I’m never suggested the person interviewed is guilty or even a suspect. Yes, you did. Even if you think you can confuse the situation by claiming that adversary doesn't mean what adversary means. Not all interactions between government employees and civilians are "adversarial". You want a new word, not to claim the old word means whatever you say it does. > An opponent; an enemy. > In law, having an opposing party, in contradistinction to unopposed: as, an adversary suit. https://www.wordnik.com/words/adversary https://www.wordnik.com/words/adversary (go ahead and find a definition that means "person of interest" or "investigative lead"; you won't, because that's not how people use the word) > I think I see where you’re getting tripped up. When you use a word wrong, it's not on others to understand your intended meaning. You didn't mean they became an "adversary of the state". Others' interpretations of your use of the word "adversary" has been, of course, reasonable. > My mention of federal obstruction was just an example to illustrate why the FBI might be investigating at all. It was a hypothetical meant to show that the investigation likely concerns criminal activity surrounding the protest, not the protest or his speech itself. Your mention of it was not an example. Why do you write like I can't simply go back to the original context? You first wrote "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings', don’t be surprised when the state treats you like an adversary." and justified it by saying "Speech isn’t the crime, federal obstruction is. That’s what they’re looking for." If you really mean that it's an example, then you want "could be" instead of "is". Do you have any more bullshit for me to correct, or are you actually interested in understanding what words mean?
- mycodendral 1y ago
  Ok you're clearly not interested in actual discussion. You assume my perspective incorrectly and call bullshit when I clarify, that’s bad faith. You also seem unable to grasp that your false assumptions distort how you interpret everything that follows.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    I am very interested in actual discussion. I have been engaging with the substance of your comments and explaining exactly why I think it's bullshit. That's good faith. You seem unable to grasp that your misunderstandings distort how you interpret others' comments.
    - mycodendral 1y ago
      Ok. If you want to continue, then summarize my argument effectively and I'll let you know if you've got it right or wrong.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > summarize my argument effectively An investigation is not a prosecution. Now you.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        mycodendral 1y ago
        Sure, that works. Wasn't my original point, but it's more related to our recent discussion, and I don't think either of us disagree with that. I'd say yours is: This isn't a criminal investigation

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

> I’m never suggested the person interviewed is guilty or even a suspect. Yes, you did. Even if you think you can confuse the situation by claiming that adversary doesn't mean what adversary means. Not all interactions between government employees and civilians are "adversarial". You want a new word, not to claim the old word means whatever you say it does. > An opponent; an enemy. > In law, having an opposing party, in contradistinction to unopposed: as, an adversary suit. https://www.wordnik.com/words/adversary https://www.wordnik.com/words/adversary (go ahead and find a definition that means "person of interest" or "investigative lead"; you won't, because that's not how people use the word) > I think I see where you’re getting tripped up. When you use a word wrong, it's not on others to understand your intended meaning. You didn't mean they became an "adversary of the state". Others' interpretations of your use of the word "adversary" has been, of course, reasonable. > My mention of federal obstruction was just an example to illustrate why the FBI might be investigating at all. It was a hypothetical meant to show that the investigation likely concerns criminal activity surrounding the protest, not the protest or his speech itself. Your mention of it was not an example. Why do you write like I can't simply go back to the original context? You first wrote "If you call lawful arrests 'kidnappings', don’t be surprised when the state treats you like an adversary." and justified it by saying "Speech isn’t the crime, federal obstruction is. That’s what they’re looking for." If you really mean that it's an example, then you want "could be" instead of "is". Do you have any more bullshit for me to correct, or are you actually interested in understanding what words mean?

mycodendral 1y ago
Ok you're clearly not interested in actual discussion. You assume my perspective incorrectly and call bullshit when I clarify, that’s bad faith. You also seem unable to grasp that your false assumptions distort how you interpret everything that follows.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  I am very interested in actual discussion. I have been engaging with the substance of your comments and explaining exactly why I think it's bullshit. That's good faith. You seem unable to grasp that your misunderstandings distort how you interpret others' comments.
  - mycodendral 1y ago
    Ok. If you want to continue, then summarize my argument effectively and I'll let you know if you've got it right or wrong.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      > summarize my argument effectively An investigation is not a prosecution. Now you.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - mycodendral 1y ago
        Sure, that works. Wasn't my original point, but it's more related to our recent discussion, and I don't think either of us disagree with that. I'd say yours is: This isn't a criminal investigation