[infamouscow]

The claim on its face was never in dispute.

The primary focus of the discussion has been on the potential influence of the Smith-Mundt Act on one's opinions and understanding of the issue at hand.

Engaging in a deeper analysis provides a more stimulating conversation, as opposed to simply expressing superficial agreement or disagreement, which isn't thought-provoking or worth commentary in the slightest.

[stale2002]

> The claim on its face was never in dispute

Ok gotcha, so then the point is valid, and it is totally fine to be more worried about, and ban the actions of a hostile foreign government.

Glad you agree completely with the central point, and we cleared that up that you are in 100% agreement with the original statement.

[infamouscow]

The central point is that when presented with the factual realities of the Smith-Mundt Act being repealed, it's crucial to reevaluate one's opinions to ensure they are not influenced by tainted information. By not acknowledging the impact of the Smith-Mundt Act, it's unclear whether the opinions being expressed are free from propagandistic influences.

I urge you to consider the implications of the Smith-Mundt Act and its repeal in the context of your viewpoints. Engaging with this crucial aspect of the conversation allowing for a more informed and nuanced understanding of the issue at hand, and to help ascertain whether opinions are genuinely untainted by external manipulation.

[stale2002]

So is that a yes, that you agree completely that it is correct to be more concerned about actions of hostile foreign governments, and it's Ok to ban those things first?

Because that sounds like a yes to me!

You didn't say no! So I can only assume that this is a yes.

If you do not explicitly include the words "yes" or "no" in your response, I will assume that your answer is "yes".

Actually you already basically said yes here: "The claim on its face was never in dispute".

This is a yes.