[jamesrcole]

I wasn't pretending. You overestimate your communication skills. Have a look at your original comment and how much it is assuming that isn't being communicated to its audience.

What is this conversation supposed to be? Is it a play on lines from a movie or something? Who is it meant to be between? Who does the first speaker represent? What about the second? What is the context of the conversation? Why does that conversation relfect something true about the real-world situation? Is the conversation meant to be some kind of metaphor?

Because you know the point you're trying to make, the meaning of your comment is clear to you. But to someone who doesn't start out knowing what that point is meant to be, they don't have anything to go on.

[martin_a]

You can't grasp the meaning of a metaphor, put it in context with the headline and a fictional dialog and think that his communication skills are bad?

Maybe yours are.

German spy agencies are known to work with/for US intelligence without any hesitations. There was little or rather no consequences at all following the disclosures made by Snowden, although even chancellor Merkels smartphone was wiretapped.

This history (see, it's more about knowing something about politics and history) has lead to the impression that Germany will mostly follow American pressure blindly.

Coupled with the total lack of solid reasons not to use Huawei, this thing just looks like a "don't buy from the Chinese"-request from the US and Cisco.

With such obscure things like former BND chief Schindler saying that Huawei tech is "one and a half to two years more advanced than ours" [0] and that he fears there would be dependence on Chinese tech (and not on US tech anymore). This is what it's all about. It's not about security, it's about money. As always.

[0] https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/5G-Frueher-BND-Chef-...

[jamesrcole]

It's telling that you think it was obviously a metaphor. It was obviously a fictional dialogue, but so many things relating to that dialogue (as mentioned in my previous comment) were unclear.

Have you heard of "the curse of knowledge"?

Assuming all the details in your explanation are correct, if someone already knows those details what are they going to get from your comment? And if they don't know those details, how are they supposed to understand your comment?

[ElBarto]

Stop digging, please. It's unclear only to you.

[jamesrcole]

It's obvious you can't address the substance of my comment when you can only reply with that.

Only unclear to me? That's obviously untrue, because I can see your earlier replies to me are grayed out from downvotes by others (note especially the "My comment was crystal clear" one), and I know that my comments have been upvoted by several people who clearly think the same about your comment as I do.

[ElBarto]

Talking about overestimating something...

Now please leave me alone and find someone else to troll.

[dang]

If you continue to break the site guidelines like this we are going to have to ban you again.

Plenty of other users are able to express views similar to yours without crossing into incivility or posting flamebait. Please be like them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html