[tptacek]

The difference is that you're saying something without evidence, and I'm saying something for which pretty extensive evidence is on the record. Please note that I'm being careful about separating what I have evidence for --- Epstein's grudge against Google over the quarantining of his hacked website --- from what I don't --- his testimony before the Senate.

[ryacko]

You are claiming that Epstein is a petty man, and has decided to devote his entire life towards smearing Google, although at this point it is for wages?

You disguise your rather strong claim with passive voice and a conclusion that doesn’t attempt to convince me at all.

[tptacek]

I think if you read any other comment of mine in this thread, you will not see me saying that Epstein has "decided to devote his entire life towards smearing Google". I don't know what you mean by "a petty man" and further don't think it'd be productive to explore that. I'd appreciate it if you could try a little harder to respond to arguments I've actually made.

[ryacko]

Okay, I will try harder, I suppose I owe that to you to understand your arguments and where you come from.

I was unclear, I meant that your arguments leave one with the inference that Epstein would dedicate the remainder of his life against Google. I mean petty man as in man motivated by petty reasons.

I am unaware if you really meant to imply that or if you’ve been repeatedly communicating unclearly.

[tptacek]

Once again, my argument is simple:

1. There is clear evidence that Epstein holds a grudge against Google based on the quarantine they put on his website.

2. It is not clear that this grudge determines his opinion about Google's influence on elections.

3. However, the grudge is relevant information in anyone's consideration of Epstein's opinions. Do with it what you will.

[ryacko]

1. The evidence shows that Epstein was angered by Google’s actions, but there is no evidence of his present emotional state. I don’t know anyone who would be angry for seven years for an automated notation warning caution for their own website.

2. Yes, but it is not even clear he holds this opinion or is being paid to parrot viewpoints he is paid for.

3. No evidence there is a grudge, see my argument in item #1.

[tptacek]

Let's again be clear that Google's "actions" here seem to sum up to:

1. Noticing that this guy's site was serving malware --- which Epstein was later forced to concede that it was.

2. Putting a warning on the search engine referral.