The Twitter files

[probinson]

Who is this "we" and when was the determination made?

Fair point.

I've already made that determination.

The standard for "evidence" was that there would be something on government letterhead, perhaps with an official seal. I'm 100% confident that no such "evidence" exists. That does not mean there is no evidence at all. It simply means that any evidence that doesn't mean that exacting specification will be disregarded. Hence, an impossible standard for evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

Fair point.

I've already made that determination.

The standard for "evidence" was that there would be something on government letterhead, perhaps with an official seal. I'm 100% confident that no such "evidence" exists. That does not mean there is no evidence at all. It simply means that any evidence that doesn't mean that exacting specification will be disregarded. Hence, an impossible standard for evidence.

Seems like a lot of words explaining why there's so much avoiding showing the evidence rather than just showing the evidence. But hey, whatever you think will be convincing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, let's see...

Do you have a problem with governments having weekly meetings with social media companies to "suggest" what should be removed? If so, I'm talking about you. If not, then I'm not talking about you.

See how simple?

Ye, it is pretty simple. A random hypothetical question isn't evidence that the previous post wasn't a complete fabrication. In fact, attempting to dodge like that might been seen by some as a "determination" that was exactly the case.

 

[probinson]

Ye, it is pretty simple. A random hypothetical question isn't evidence that the previous post wasn't a complete fabrication. In fact, attempting to dodge like that might been seen by some as a "determination" that was exactly the case.

You do amuse me. At least you're consistent.

 

[KCfromNC]

You do amuse me. At least you're consistent.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to consistently identify the posts running away from backing up previous allegations when it happens so frequently. The one I'm replying to being yet another example.

I guess if there were any substance to the claims there wouldn't be a need for this sort of diversion, but oh well, one has to work with what one has.