4 ms·

What confuses me is that you agree with my point, that there is no evidence whatsoever for the Syrian allegation, it is heresay. So why don't you also complain

What confuses me is that you agree with my point, that there is no evidence whatsoever for the Syrian allegation, it is heresay. So why don't you also complain that everyone is discussing it as fact?

alsetmusic 12y ago
Can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't been given any solid reasons to discredit things Snowden has brought to light, except by parties whose best interest is to undercut him. He may have got things wrong on a small or large scale and could have deliberately falsified information, but the evidence to suggest this is currently lacking. The NSA, on the other hand, has been shown to operate with questionable ethics repeatedly. For the moment, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt over them.
- Dolimiter 12y ago
  Wait what? Snowden himself says that the source of the information was office gossip. This isn't a case of believing or not believing Snowden. It's a case of people taking a snippet of gossip and reporting it as true because they want it to be true! People's reality distortion field when faced with the Snowden topic - it astonishes me.
jsmthrowaway 12y ago
I would second alsetmusic. The veracity of ES as a source hasn't faltered since Day 1. Plus, why lie now?
- Dolimiter 12y ago
  It was Snowden himself who said is was office gossip. The only people reporting it as fact are those caught in the Snowden reality distortion field.
  - tripzilch 12y ago
    > It was Snowden himself who said is was office gossip. I just checked and read back that part of the article and that's not at all how it is portrayed. He says he was "told" about it by an intelligence officer. With an amount of detail that makes it hard to discount as just "rumour" (for Snowden, if the story was false, these details wouldn't have checked out, also someone had to have been deliberately spreading misinformation damaging to this TAO crew). Also, in the context of the entire article, Snowden recounts this story as one of a number of reasons why he took the steps he decided to take to become a whistleblower. That's not something done over just office rumours. Therefore, apart from the assumption that Snowden is deliberately passing off disinformation as truth himself, there's really no reason not to accept this story as fact, or what Snowden believes to be factual.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> heresay. heresy + hearsay = heresay?

What confuses me is that you agree with my point, that there is no evidence whatsoever for the Syrian allegation, it is heresay. So why don't you also complain that everyone is discussing it as fact?

alsetmusic 12y ago

Can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't been given any solid reasons to discredit things Snowden has brought to light, except by parties whose best interest is to undercut him. He may have got things wrong on a small or large scale and could have deliberately falsified information, but the evidence to suggest this is currently lacking. The NSA, on the other hand, has been shown to operate with questionable ethics repeatedly. For the moment, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt over them.

Dolimiter 12y ago
Wait what? Snowden himself says that the source of the information was office gossip. This isn't a case of believing or not believing Snowden. It's a case of people taking a snippet of gossip and reporting it as true because they want it to be true! People's reality distortion field when faced with the Snowden topic - it astonishes me.

jsmthrowaway 12y ago

I would second alsetmusic. The veracity of ES as a source hasn't faltered since Day 1. Plus, why lie now?

Dolimiter 12y ago
It was Snowden himself who said is was office gossip. The only people reporting it as fact are those caught in the Snowden reality distortion field.
- tripzilch 12y ago
  > It was Snowden himself who said is was office gossip. I just checked and read back that part of the article and that's not at all how it is portrayed. He says he was "told" about it by an intelligence officer. With an amount of detail that makes it hard to discount as just "rumour" (for Snowden, if the story was false, these details wouldn't have checked out, also someone had to have been deliberately spreading misinformation damaging to this TAO crew). Also, in the context of the entire article, Snowden recounts this story as one of a number of reasons why he took the steps he decided to take to become a whistleblower. That's not something done over just office rumours. Therefore, apart from the assumption that Snowden is deliberately passing off disinformation as truth himself, there's really no reason not to accept this story as fact, or what Snowden believes to be factual.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> heresay. heresy + hearsay = heresay?