It seems like you’re either very aware of how NSA backdoors work and you’re misleading people for some reason or you don’t know what you’re talking about
I am explaining that I see two options and I pick the second in good faith. I believe I am participating according to the rules, or at least I am attempting to do so in good faith.
One is innuendo, the second one is an insult. In good faith or not, neither is 'participating according to the rules' since both are explicitly mentioned there as things not to do.
I respectfully disagree. It certainly isn’t intended as an insult!
One looks like astroturfing performed without a valid basis against cited examples shared in good faith, the other appears to be a mistake in analysis which I am pointing out in good faith. It’s probably an honest mistake, the history here is intentionally obscured by large-scale adversaries.
I do believe that the second is just a mistake and I do not intend it as an insult. I would appreciate it if you could please assume good faith with my responses and additionally hear me when I say it is in good faith a mistake of analysis. I think that his analysis is simply wrong, and my citations are evidence for why I think this is so.
You don't have to agree but you can't call people NSA shills and you can't tell people they don't know what they're talking about. That's just how this forum works - don't put that kind of thing in your comments. It's not a high or difficult bar to meet.
I did not intend, nor do I think I called the parent an NSA shill. If it comes across as that, I apologize.
The parent clearly says that it is hard to get a bead on what he is arguing. I tried to explain what people may hear or see and I do believe that some people might not be able to see the latter but only the former, fair or not, but I only endorsed the latter.
I guess I should make clear that I think the parent is simply mistaken and that I don’t think he is a shill. It’s not intended as an insult to say there is a mistake of analysis, as I said the topic is very difficult and also often very contentious.
I’m saying this in response to the parents claim of it being hard to get a bead on what he is arguing. I’m answering that as two possible ways to read it and I emphasize the latter. I did not accuse, I tried to explain what I think people take from his argumentation.
My words included two options, one of which includes those words — and I disowned the first option. Please read it again and then read his comment again. Selective quoting won’t change that I was providing a reflection of two possible reads of his comments, and I endorsed the latter in good faith. If you think my first option is unreasonable as a characterization to write down, I’m not sure how I can more clearly express that this is a reading that someone can fairly arrive at - I just think it’s wrong. I provided these two options because he could rephrase his comments to avoid the first one entirely to sharpen his argument. If the parent hadn’t expressed that it was “hard to get a bead” I wouldn’t have provided the first option as feedback to try to express the possible “beads” in question.
If you don’t think there are people who are actively misleading people on this topic or that a comment can’t be read that way, I think we should agree to disagree. People will read a lot of things in this area in bad faith and they are also often wrong because there is intentional obfuscation by large-scale adversaries.
Look, dude, I don't care about this NSA shill stuff, and you're not doing your arguments any favors trying to super-duper-duper explain what you really meant by dropping innuendo into the thread. Just stop talking about it and move on. Now you know that HN is super picky about "shillage" arguments. We can be done talking about it.
you can't talk at people like that here, see
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
and take it down five notches