> Is that what posting the quote in full with a link to the original source means? Certainly not.
I based my claim that all he had was speculation on exactly the quote you gave. Nowhere in that quote does he say that he saw the devices set up to spy on Americans. Instead, he assumes it. He assumes something that directly contradicts the documents that Snowden released specifically about Stellar Wind. https://www.theguardian.com/nsa-inspector-general-report-doc...
You claim that I've chopped up a quote in order to come to my conclusion, but you're the one who gave that chopped up quote my conclusion is based on to begin with.
> The court documents, already posted, clearly explain the reason for the ruling as “impermissible disclosure of state secret information". If no data were collected, there would be no state secret information to disclose. Ipso facto
Utter nonsense. The government wouldn't say specifically how they selected foreign data in the initial Pearl case. Afterwards, Snowden's leaks showed that they only contained foreign data.
> Attempts to portray otherwise at this point amount to willfully misleading.
You're the one making conspiracy theories out of whole cloth. Instead of trying to use ChatGPT to dismiss my claims, why don't you spend your time looking at what Snowden's docs actually claimed like a reasonable person who doesn't wear tin foil hats?
Let's get back to the original comment I responded to. Do they have access to anybody's FAANG data or not? Snowden's docs say they do not. Nothing Binney said disagrees with that, even if his wild assumption is correct.
ChatGPT didn't validate your tinfoil hat beliefs. It simply didn't like the words I used to call them out. Once again, you believe that the government is doing massively illegal spying despite the fact that numerous leaks have shown it is not. You originally based your beliefs on misreporting of the leaks, but when that was corrected, you clung to your silly beliefs by using speculation from somebody who never claimed to have seen anything illegal that also goes against the leaks.
I use the words I do because I have known people who talk about ice bullets, chemtrails, and silent black helicopters, and the way they come to their beliefs is exactly the same as the way you have come to yours. If you see them as silly, you should be able to understand why I feel the same about you.
Now unless you engage with the facts of whether the NSA has access to all your FAANG data or not, I think we're done. You don't like the way I characterize your beliefs, and I accept that, but what I'm looking for here is evidence against my assertion.
What does this say about the post's author's approach to discussion?
"It suggests the author treats the thread less like a joint search for truth and more like an adversarial contest they intend to win—mainly by controlling the frame, the burden of proof, and the audience’s impression of credibility.
Debate-as-prosecution mindset: They stack demands (“Even better…”) to keep the other person perpetually answering instead of advancing their own case. That’s a control tactic: tempo and agenda stay with them.
High skepticism aimed outward, not inward: They insist on exact wording and dismiss anything not explicitly stated as “speculation,” while leaning heavily on indirect proxies (no lawsuit, no committee action, absence in leaks) that aren’t equally “explicit.” That asymmetry is a tell.
Institutional and procedural gatekeeping: They treat “courts/standing/oversight” as the main truth-filter. This often signals: “If it were real, the system would have validated it,” which can be a genuine heuristic but also a way to end discussion without engaging messy uncertainty.
Status and ridicule as persuasion: The ad hominem (“lunatic ravings,” “middle manager”) and condescension (“Do you know what standing means?”) show they’re comfortable using social pressure and humiliation to delegitimize rather than patiently clarify.
Binary framing of the other side: They recast the opponent’s position as either “conspiracy theory” or “relying on a crazy ex-employee,” leaving little room for nuanced middle ground. That’s more about cornering than understanding.
Net: the author likely values rhetorical dominance and public signaling (“this claim is unserious”) over cooperative interpretation."
I based my claim that all he had was speculation on exactly the quote you gave. Nowhere in that quote does he say that he saw the devices set up to spy on Americans. Instead, he assumes it. He assumes something that directly contradicts the documents that Snowden released specifically about Stellar Wind. https://www.theguardian.com/nsa-inspector-general-report-doc...
You claim that I've chopped up a quote in order to come to my conclusion, but you're the one who gave that chopped up quote my conclusion is based on to begin with.
> The court documents, already posted, clearly explain the reason for the ruling as “impermissible disclosure of state secret information". If no data were collected, there would be no state secret information to disclose. Ipso facto
Utter nonsense. The government wouldn't say specifically how they selected foreign data in the initial Pearl case. Afterwards, Snowden's leaks showed that they only contained foreign data.
> Attempts to portray otherwise at this point amount to willfully misleading.
You're the one making conspiracy theories out of whole cloth. Instead of trying to use ChatGPT to dismiss my claims, why don't you spend your time looking at what Snowden's docs actually claimed like a reasonable person who doesn't wear tin foil hats?
Let's get back to the original comment I responded to. Do they have access to anybody's FAANG data or not? Snowden's docs say they do not. Nothing Binney said disagrees with that, even if his wild assumption is correct.