4 ms·
I don't think that's what he's suggesting at all. We shouldn't automatically discount their statements, but we should start scrutinizing them very carefully bef
by phaus 12y ago
I don't think that's what he's suggesting at all. We shouldn't automatically discount their statements, but we should start scrutinizing them very carefully before we make a call.
- mpyne 12y agoScrutiny is fine, but the "scrutiny" on display in this thread is quite fanciful indeed. It's almost as if people were hoping that FBI is, somehow, someway, wrong, instead of skeptically analyzing the data presented using critical analysis and then following where the evidence leads. E.g. the top comment right now claims that a footnote practically proves FBI employed parallel construction, based on no reasoned argument, and without examining even the possibility that there is a reasonable explanation on the FBI's behalf. So if scrutiny is the byword, let's practice scrutiny. But I'm just seeing advocacy.