[nickpsecurity]

What are you talking about? They promised a certain criteria, disqualified someone who appeared to win by it (minus the vote boost maybe), claimed it for one set of reasons, it looked like it was for worse reasons, half-ass admitted that later, and still aren't fully owning up to it now or presenting it honestly for future participants in these things. At least, that's how I read tptacek's comments throughout thread.

I was about to even agree with one saying the evidence looked fishy given spotting or countering subversive behavior is kind of my thing. Then, kevin's comment appeared just as I was about to write mine to confirm opposition angle a lot.

Full disclosure: First time I've ever found out who idlewords is, I don't use that product, probably didn't give it a vote, I give mixed reviews of Silicon Valley politics/VC's, and say whatever I think facts lead to regardless of blowback. As in, near zero bias in this and people's concerns are still obvious to me.

[david927]

You misunderstand. There was a time when I thought we might be #2, and I thought, 'I think that gives us a good chance'. I didn't think, 'therefore they have to pick us'. They were clear about that.

[nickpsecurity]

tptacek's comment said a lot more than "he had more votes." Matter of fact, it didn't mention that directly at all. One would have to read his other comments to get context. That's what context I had in mind when trying to interpret your comment.

Now, if this is your whole argument, then I don't disagree with it. Yet, tptacek's reply to you is still true based on what's in the comment you replied to and the others. Your counter doesn't apply to what he wrote.