"No, honest. Stop laughing, you sound silly."

It's apocryphal, but a young Martin Luther (before the 95 theses) did a penance obligation, climbing a set of stairs, stopping at each step to say a prayer for the remittance of sins for a departed soul. According to dogma, this could shave off some time in purgatory and hasten a soul's ascension into heaven. Luther dutifully mounted the stairs, saying the prescribed prayer on each riser, and when he reached the top, is said to have pondered aloud, "But who knows whether it is so?"

Which probably makes me one of hated Purity Brigade members, baselessly distrustful of our intelligence agencies.

exactly..

He was able to copy massive amounts of data to a thumb drive, but he didn't have the foresight to save a single email which would have vindicated him and proved that he did indeed raise concerns as a whistleblower?

Kinda odd, no?

I work in information technology and I work with large, complex systems. Shit can go wrong in a millisecond. Email is everything and you better use it to cover your ass. I learned that as soon as I got my first job out of college.

Snowden ain't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Either that, or the more likely scenario....these emails don't exist.

It seems these agencies have a lot of problems finding troublesome emails.

Nice slip.

No documents, You are guilty is what they would say. Your authoritarian slip is showing if you believe the NSA story. But not really a slip given your posts.

One is born every minute, no?

It has your best interests at heart.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

to an inquiry launched in May2012 that claimed RW groups were being targeted for scrutiny to prevent them from participating in the 2012 election?

They would not accept this explanation from a taxpayer they were auditing. They would tell them 'tough shit, you should have had a better back up system, you are guilty as charged'. But when it is them they get a pass. And if you believe the NSA would not lie then it is a hopeless conversation.

Seems to me you can't craft an answer and are looking to dodge it. One could see that as troublesome.

Much more to come I believe.

The 2011 through 2012 emails were turned over. Anyone deliberately trying to destroy evidence in the case Issa was trying to make about the 2012 election, as has been implied here, would have destroyed the 2011 through 2012 emails. Yet those were all turned over. Gee - don't even want to try and explain for us little old dumb folks who can't see what YOU and Issa are seeing?

...latter use ...he can even forward them inside the organization to a trusted party....

There are no emails manny

Sounds like he had a fine excuse for downloading files.

makes you wonder.

It doesn't matter what kind of server it's on. Why didn't he save it to the same thumb drive where he copied millions of docs?

Sid

More proof this guy is total loser and liar.

The intelligence and defense communities have never lied to us before, have they?



Trav

interesting.

Many have been expecting him to drop the dime after NSA "could not find anything"

emails from Snowden regarding data collection. I can't hold it much longer.

And it is disingenuous for Cali Democrat to quote that mischaracterization yet again after so many posts on DU have set the matter straight.

It was a legal question. Does an EO take precendence over the law? It was a canny and strategic question.

Snowden's critics can continue to spin and tee hee 'til the cows come home.

I thought you were intelligent enough to understand written English.

Zero Zilch Nada.

the no copy would have been on his computer, only on the exchange server. If he sent it from a personal account, that might be different, but where I used to work, it was against the rules to use personal email accounts to discuss company business.
Thus deleting all proof that he had ever sent an email would be simply deleting it from the server and accidentally reusing the backup tapes.

I guarantee you, I save a local copy of every single email that would end up being a CYA if management ever acted incorrectly.

I NEVER send or receive an email from HR where I do not have a local copy at my disposal.

I GUARANTEE you, Snowden is lying about going to his superiors.

Mark my words!

And so on.....

There will never be any emails produced because Snowden lied.

If Snowden is not a liar, let him produce the emails.

Not much time left, Glen! Show your cards!


That Snowden, though, he is the luckiest boy in the world.


Unfortunately, Caesar is not amused by these morons.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

Without the picture book style?

It's been a year and still neither Snowden nor Greenwald have produced a 'smoking gun'. Only insinuations.

Those who still want to be 'believers' deserve only mockery from now on. Same as we would mock those who think the Moon landings were faked.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

And let the rest of us, who are able to maintain a minimum level of maturity and tact, have a meaningful discussion and debate.

After all, this is a discussion board. Not a board where you get to spew mockery because you're frustrated with a specific subject.

not sufficiently "mature" or "tactful." Everyone "discusses" in their own way on this board and you really shouldn't be lecturing people on how they're "allowed" to do it.

I think people who act like nitwits deserve to have "mockery" errr.. spewed... at them.



Frankly, Snowden has been talking out his ass, and so has Greenwald.

They need to put up or shut up and stop monetizing national security matters. I'm surprised Greenwald hasn't started selling "Secrets by the Piece."

Albeit, passive aggressively. What I'm saying is that contributing nothing at all is better than inhibiting the discussion.

If the debate is as frivolous as some suggest, why are they even bothering to respond at all?

See how that works? One person's "belittling" is another person's "clever riposte."

Where you stand depends on where you sit. You may regard a comment as frivolous while someone else sees it as a clever analogy.

You have options--IGNORE is a good one if you don't like hearing what a specific person has to say. Saying "I don't think your comments are serious enough for this conversation" is your right, but it makes it sound like you're trying to shut the person up.

That what seems relative, and what is understandable only within the context of a two-sided agenda, is actually concrete and largely unchanging.

In other words, belittling is belittling regardless of your ideological stance. How you justify it is what might change but the underlying truth does not.

So, for instance, the argument that one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist doesn't mean that the subject must be both but instead that the fog of agenda makes people believe both are true in contradiction.

So, rather than trying to argue that disruption may actually be the opposite of itself, try to understand how it is exactly one thing. Not because it must but because it might.

Sometimes belittling is simply belittling. Similarly, there's nothing constructive about openly mocking, especially in such childish terms, the members of this board or Snowden or Greenwald. That is simply mockery. And don't confuse criticism with mockery. The two are not necessarily the same. I am criticizing the actions of a poster but I am not mocking them.

One person's "disruption" is another person's "valid point" or "tangential-but-related issue."

And sometimes, mockery serves a larger purpose. I mock Dick Cheney routinely; I regard that mockery as "political speech." Dick, if he read my remarks, might call me a mocker or a belittler. I really don't care much what he thinks, though!

Like I said, where you stand depends on where you sit. This is a discussion board, everyone has their own style when it comes to "discussion."

Are acting just as stupidly. I don't buy into such crazes anymore. Just like when Rude Pundit told the Cheney's to suck a dick and called Ann Coulter a c*nt. Or when people call George Bush a chimp.

It's mindless rallying. I don't care what Dick Cheney thinks of me. But that doesn't mean I need to turn him into a caricature. My contempt towards him comes from knowing what he did and what he believes. I don't need to amplify that through empty gestures.

Again, your relative argument has logical limits. There are obviously things which could be said that you would never endorse even if someone tried to argue it's just their "style."

And if you don't like "rallying," -- mindless is in the eye, if not the mind, of the beholder -- you're on the wrong website.

I don't care what Dick Cheney thinks of me, either--but I do care what I think of him. And I think he's a fucking asshole and I'll sing it from the highest rooftop.

Your argument has limits, too--"I don't like what you say and how you say it" is pretty weak sauce, there. "Everyone's stupid but MEEEEEE" doesn't cut it, either.

Of course there are things that I would not "endorse" -- that doesn't mean that I think the appropriate response to those arguments is "SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!! YOU'RE STUPID!!!! YOU'RE MINDLESSLY RALLYING!!!!! SHUT UP!!!!!!!" That is--wrapped up in all those words you've been using--what you are saying, in essence.

Again, IGNORE is YOUR FRIEND. It beats trying to censor people.

What I'm essentially saying is that embibing the conversation with adolescent insult, especially against members of this board, is not contributing to the discussion. It is diminishing it. And even the poster in question has admitted to doing just that. They do not see the legitimacy of the debate and they want it to end.

As I said, if you don't have something constructive to contribute, say nothing at all. I know that may seem ironic to you but that's because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Either that or you don't understand irony.

I don't think it is asking too much to not intentionally insult members of this board. In fact, that is mandated in the TOS.

doesn't contribute to it either.

See, you're doing it YET AGAIN!! That didactic tone, the snide remark, as though you're the teacher passing judgment on how "acceptable" people's posts are! You aren't the judge of what is a "constructive" contribution or not. You might not LIKE what others say, but that denigrating and rather smug tone is off-putting in the extreme. And it sure sounds like there's some "imbibing" going on, but not the kind you're trying to insinuate.

I agree that it isn't asking too much to not intentionally insult members of this board, and telling them that their comments suck or don't meet your particular standards of what you--and you ALONE--view as "constructive" is insulting in the extreme.

I think your overarching hubris prevents you from seeing that you ARE precisely what you're griping about, there!

They weren't here to debate. They were here, by their admission, to point out how unreal and silly the debate is. That is how this all started. Someone came into this thread insulting, among others, members of this board and that was all they were interested in doing.

I 'insult' those who believe that Occupy will soon rule the world. And I 'insult' those who believe in the S&G sideshow.

Or I call it like I see it. It's called tough love. I have no dog in this show but it's depressing to see some of you embarass yourselves by believing anything S&G tell you.

You want everyone else to get up in arms about the NSA? Show us something beside vague insinuations.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Which is, in my eyes, different from "being insulted." Whereas being insulted implies you're offended, insulting someone is the act of debasing them intellectually, regardless of whether someone is injured by your rhetoric.

I too find conspiracy theories about the moon landing frustrating. But I consider the contempt I have for those who believe in such things a sort of plaque build-up in my mind which exists only because I am unable to thoroughly express myself. So, if I really scoff at someone, it is because I am acting rash.

I try not to legitimize rash behavior, even if it is the unavoidable response to nonsense. That is why I'm saying in here that your behavior is an illegitimate response even if you are frustrated with what you view as a lack of intelligence in the opposing view.

Expressing my opinion that believing in The S&G Show (now entering it's second year!) is naive in the extreme is simply my opinion. And one that deserves to be heard. Because I certainly want to hear alternate opinions that make me re-evaluate my beliefs so I assume you do, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

No one said they were coming here with the purpose to disrupt--you made that up. I think calling out a bullshitter like ES or GG as a bullshitter is entirely constructive--you just don't like the POV, so you're getting shirty and criticizing the poster's "style" instead of refuting the content of the posts.

You can certainly pass judgment all you'd like, but your opinions will get short shrift if you keep up with the "I don't like the way you make your point" posts. You're coming off as someone who has failed to make a cogent refutation. Your criticism is most certainly NOT constructive, in fact, you avoid the essential issues entirely by focusing on tangential stuff that doesn't really matter. You can't respond to the assertions that Snowden should have made copies of the emails, he should have put them on a thumb drive, that all these big "fireworks" revelations haven't amounted to shit, so instead you whine about the way these points are presented. They're not "serious" enough for you, or whatever. Pfft!

Now, instead of speaking to those points, you're pointing a finger at ME and whining that I am "defending" someone who you and ONLY YOU say is "only here to disrupt." You say that like it is a fact, but it's not a fact--you invented that point. And then you make some lame argument that I'm not immune from criticism when you've done nothing but avoid the essential conversations in this thread, and instead focused entirely on personalities.

It's terribly obvious what you're doing--you're avoiding focusing on the substance, those key points that were made, quite clearly too, and griping about style to try to get away from having to explain why a guy who stole thousands of documents couldn't steal a few copies of his own goddamned emails. You're avoiding that point like the plague. It's visible from a country mile away, you see.

Your argument is actually quite sound ignoring the possibility of some exceptional circumstance or error on Snowden's part. Which points to the fact that Snowden may have lied. Confusing, indeed, based on the importance of his work.

I don't hero worship people. Maybe you've confused me with someone else.

You didn't respond to their points; you simply critiqued their presentations.

Not because I fear their points are being made ineffective through immaturity and insult, but because the very nature of their argumentation leads to ulterior motivations. They aren't interested, as Randome himself admitted, in taking the discussion seriously. I'm sure he'd be just as happy if the entire scandal disappeared this very moment.

Poof. Like it never happened. See, these people you're defending aren't interested in debate. They want the entire debate itself to evaporate.

Maybe you're the exception. And I would be more than willing to have the debate with you.

Now, the issue is, is there a reasonable explanation for why Snowden doesn't have copies of the emails?

More like smoke and mirrors!

One thing I have to gives the GG Snow crowd the are loyal to their idols no matter what. Kind of like how they "claim" those who support the president are towards him. Funny thing is most people who they "claim" idolize the president have admitted they don't support everything he has done, but some odd reason the GG Snow crowd never, NEVER doubt their duo.

You argue that there is no ubiquitous frivolity amongst critics of the leaks by making a frivolous argument. Well, I suppose your own personal attacks against the leakers and even members of this board don't necessarily demonstrate that such things are ubiquitous amongst critics of the leak. But they certainly don't help your case.

You've disqualified yourself.

"the person who tries to belittle the discussion is the censor."

Anytime facts are presented that show Greenwald and Snowden for the phonies they really are one side, those who idolize the two, simply ignore all the facts and make excuses. That's not really a discussion. I think the two are really good at what they do, conning those gullible enough to believe they are some kind of heroes. I am still waiting for all the ground breaking information that will bring this country to it's knees, but then again I won't be holding my breath.

But then again I guess you pretty much proved if for me, so thanks.

That's a serious question, by the way. Why do I have any incentive to believe the word of the agency over the word of Snowden?

They have a deeply vested interest in downplaying anything presented by Snowden.

Greenwald is an opportunist, plain and simple. I'm no longer willing to mince words about this: you should all be ashamed of yourselves for falling for this. There are far more important matters in the world deserving of our attention.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

After all, this is a very serious subject even if you don't agree with one side or the other. It deserves better than what you're currently contributing.

If you want to attack the validity of Snowden's work, do that rather than calling him and Greenwald childish names.

There is not one single item -not one- that S&G have produced that 'proves' crap. It's all insinuations and suppositions. It's become embarrassing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

Even by the standards of those opposed to the leaks, the usual concern is that the leaks don't prove anything NEW, not that they don't prove anything at all. There is also a concern about how the leaks compromise not only national security but the lives of individuals abroad, American and otherwise.

There's no doubt really about the existence of the collection programs of the NSA. The debate is over the matter of legality or ethics.

Nothing that S&G have published has had anything to do with that. The only armament they bring to bear is insinuations that the NSA is spying on all of us. No proof. No evidence. They are just playing on your fears to keep themselves relevant.

And you fall for it every time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

And whether or not that constitutes "spying" legally or ethically. Even the NSA does not deny such programs exist. They simply downplay the breadth of their vacuum. I'm not saying this simply because of Snowden's leaks. I say that with a well rounded understanding of the history of US clandestine government operations. There is no doubt that there is a historical capacity for Snowden's claims to be true. There's no real contradiction in believing the US government is capable of spying heavily on its own citizens. Arguably, based on the history, what's actually ridiculous is fervently not believing in such a possibility. That's the real fanaticism.

Yes, the metadata collection has been going on for a long time. It has been known since 2006 or so. So what? Has anyone been harmed by this? Not one person. You want it stopped? Talk to Congress. Although it sounds like some of the circuit courts or whatever (and even Congress now) are trying to put a stop to it.

All this effort and worry over something that might someday be a danger to some unknown person or persons.

You know what you will have if this is stopped? A victory over an imaginary fear.

More power to you. I'm only pointing out that there are more real victories to be won. Phantom victories -'paper' victories, if you will- are not so impressive.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

I argue not that it could some day become a danger but that its very collection makes it a real and present danger at this VERY moment. There is no vague middle ground here.

The very nature of metadata collection makes it a corrupt process. Do you understand? The idea of privacy rights isn't just to protect us against a disjointed threat that may be associated with the violation of privacy. It is also to recognize that simply violating our privacy is itself a corrupt act. That invasion is injurious by its very nature.

Now, you may find more recent revelation about other potential spying programs untrue. But that is a lot different from saying the entire discussion surrounding this is illegitimate.

What is not up or debate at this point is the seriousness of the situation. That isn't up for debate. So when you say we should face "real" issues, you're just belittling your own argument. It's not constructive because it's not relevant anymore. The time for questioning the imminence of this topic has long since passed.

So, please, either do us the service of taking the discussion seriously or don't say anything at all. No one here is forcing you to say anything. If you don't want to participate, don't participate. But don't veil your agenda under this idea that you're trying to liberate us from the unreality or silliness of the debate. That's just disingenuous.

And you're right, I can't prove a negative, which means the metadata collection is, to me, a big 'Meh'. Even Carl Bernstein said the NSA has strong safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

You don't need to take his word for anything but that's enough for me. And since this thread was initially about Snowden, I maintain that it's embarrassing for those who want to see him as some sort of superhero.

He's a lonely, isolated, pathetic man. Much like the father in Mosquito Coast who succeeded in isolating himself to such an extent that his own family finally caught on that he was a loon.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

Because I don't care if what you say of him is true or not true, that is precisely why I have no need to concede to your statements in some sort of grand gesture of understanding. The truth is that I don't understand your posturing here. It doesn't make sense to me except within the context of someone who is trying very deeply to believe what they say.

Tonight is only about a busy week at work, a couple glasses of wine and two daughters who continue to surprise and inspire me.

There is no 'posturing' about me. None that I can see, although I'm probably the least objective observer of myself.

A year has gone by. And still Snowden is trying to convince us of his relevance. It's Russ Tice all over again. The guy who insisted someone he worked with was a double agent despite his colleagues telling him he was wrong. The guy who finally got Congress to agree to a public hearing and then unaccountably didn't show. (He showed up at a later, 2nd hearing.)

Guys like Snowden and Tice "come with baggage", as they say. They are not to be trusted because they can't see outside their own heads.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

That these types of individuals should not be trusted.

Does this somehow inspire you to place any trust in agencies like the NSA or CIA? Do you trust these agencies?

And as such are subject to flaws and mis-steps and outright deceit. They have self-reported many violations to the FISA court. Which I understand is another subject.

But I don't get 'down' on the FBI or the CIA or Interpol or my local police precinct without some reason to suspect them of nefarious activity.

Without evidence, all this endless 'celebration' of the NSA's evil intentions seems pathetic to me. And that's what this is to many. They want to see a more visible enemy than the hazy ones that are hardest to overcome: politicians, elections and laws.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

Is the politician. Politicians have always been hated and very often for just cause; but often for simply existing as a politician.

What entities haven't really been hated by the general public? Those which either don't really exist at all, they are clandestine, or those which veil their contempt under the guise of nationalism. I think it's easier to see through the actions of an individual. It's much harder to see through the actions of a large agency like the NSA or CIA. Yes, the NSA and CIA are made up of people. But kind of in a similar way to how the human body is made up of cells. It's the body which possesses the force and intelligence, even though it could not exist without the cells.

The same goes for these agencies. They aren't just collections of human beings. They are mechanisms with a driving force. What is the force driving the NSA or CIA?

Painting the dissenting whistleblower as mentally unstable. Lonely, isolated, pathetic loon.

This is disgusting stuff. Just disgusting.

The man left not one single friend behind. Not one. He couldn't even establish a relationship with his pole-dancing girlfriend! Tell me, without taking into account anything about the NSA, does that not sound like an emotionally isolated man?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

And even if it were true, without taking into account anything about the NSA, what freaking business would it be of yours?

I don't understand why you express resentment about his personal life.

Absent a smoking gun or solid evidence of some sort, the narrative always turns to personalities.

These two keep telling us, "Believe what we're telling you!" If they don't have solid evidence to back up their insinuations, then of course we start looking at motivations. And personalities. And agendas.

That's only normal. If Chicken Little was telling us the sky was falling, we would want some evidence of that or we would write him off as a loon.

How many more years will it take before S&G release the kraken?

We are now into The Snowden Affair: Year 2. Good God!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Any substance that may exist in your protest is completely buried under red-herrings.

Is that better?

Not. One. Single. Friend.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

... was put on a plane headed for Moscow, but somehow wound up in Copenhagen instead.

Funny how so many people who scoffed at BushCo's attempts to play on people's fears are the very same people who have been taken in by Snowden and GG's attempts to do exactly the same thing - and without one iota of proof to back up their claims.

It's like hearing that any day now, Occupy will conquer the world. I wish someone would conquer the world but it's plain as day it won't be Occupy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

I read very little DU nowadays - except for the ongoing Snowden Saga, which I find fascinating.

The folks who latched onto him within 24 hours of learning his name - aside from the fact that they knew nothing of the man, and had no way of assessing his credibility - have simply refused to budge from their initial hero-worship. In fact, every revelation of his contradictory statements, or his outright lies, make them dig their heels in even deeper.

It's quite a phenomenon. The people who yell "don't trust anything the gov't tells you" are those who believe everything they hear from Snowden or GG - no proof required, no evidence needed.

As I said before, those who brag about their "healthy skepticism" when it comes to believing anything are the same people who have abandoned all skepticism when it comes to Eddie and Glen.

I, like you, await the great "Fireworks Display" - and when it turns out to be two kids on the corner holding a fizzled-out sparkler, the posts will abound about what an incredible display it really was.

The poster's response to anyone's comments are that they are stupid, unserious, not "good" enough...there's absolutely no attempt to address the points made--just "I'm smart and you're not" and "You aren't being SEEEERIOUS"--it's a major fail, repeated throughout the thread.

That just hate govt in general...

How am I an ideologue? And why do you think I'm an anarchist?

Just look up the definition to undrrstand...

Second, I know the definition of an ideologue. I just would like to know why you think I am one.

Beyond that, nothing is self-evident.

Are you arguing that the evidence for me being an anarchist and and ideologue is easily observed and does not demand further elaboration? That is by definition not self-evidence. It simply means you personally have experienced what you believe to be evidence of my anarchism and ideology. If someone asks you, like I have, to provide evidence for your belief, deferring to the argument of self-evidence is an untenable position.

Am I demanding that you defend all positions you personally believe to be self-evident? No. But self-evidence becomes an irrelevant factor once you make public judgments. Believing deeply that I am an anarchist and an ideologue is a perfectly reasonable position as long as you keep it to yourself. The moment you decide to form accusation from your belief is exactly the point when evidence is necessary.

Again, I ask, what is your evidence?

me thinks thou protest too much!

i·de·o·logue
ˈīdēəˌlôg,-ˌläg,ˈidēə-/Submit
noun
an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

(also known as someone who would let the good be the enemy of the perfect)

you're just "belittling" their "arguments." Only YOU are "serious," everyone else isn't cutting the mustard.

Sorry--your schtick is becoming obvious. You repeat it throughout this thread, and I just gotta point it out.

To specific posters.

Again, is telling someone to stop obstructing conversation censorship?

The posters who I am taking to are trying to delegitimize the discussion by mocking members of this board. That is not acceptable conduct.

You're focusing on personalities.

All one has to do is read this thread and it is painfully apparent. This one isn't serious, this one uses pictures and mockery to make a point, waah, waah, waah. Respond to the points made, spend less time playing the English teacher criticizing how the point is made, why doncha? You're trying to shut down discussion by boring people to death with finger wags about their "style," avoiding refuting the issues raised, and instead focusing on how the issues are presented.

It's a fail, that tactic.

In other words, how you make an argument is just as important as what the argument is, not because you're trying to motivate others but because how you make an argument says a lot about you.

So, if someone had maturely and rationally presented skepticism of Snowden's claims, or even accused him of lying, I would have been happy to discuss the matter. Precisely because I'm interested in knowing what actually happened rather than maintaining a preconceived narrative.