[harry8]

It's a huge hypothetical when you imagine the possibility of something that has zero evidence and in truth seems pretty unlikely.

Snowdon not a hero. Whatever your prior, it has been updated with a lot of data none yet pointing that direction.

CIA,NSA,FBI the good guys now. Left as an exercise as to what should be necessary to update a view based on the clear evidence we actually have about those institutions, however long it took to come out.

[keepamovin]

I’m sorry, I can’t understand your English. Would it be a terrible idea if you really spelled it out for me what you’re saying or used your native language and I’ll Google Translate it. Thanks! :)

[harry8]

I think it's your english that is at issue here today. Try a little harder. :)

[keepamovin]

So I need to pay the price for your poor communication skills? No.

[harry8]

No. You need pay nothing nor indeed take part in intellectual life at all.

But at least your abuse made for a change from the usual "this is Markov chain authored" in response when someone rightly abuses the CIA which really seems to need reform. That might well be coincidence, of course.

[keepamovin]

So if someone says they can’t understand your English, and then you’re rude, and they then say you have poor communication skills, you’re being abused, is that right?

And if anyone disagrees they're just missing out on your brilliance?

[harry8]

You're pretty new at HN judging by your account. It's clear to me in numbers that other people understood that post I wrote in plain english, as they have what I write for years here. You didn't? And you were pretty rude about it. I've noticed this exact pattern happens often when someone picks up on smears of Snowden, or Assange or criticizes the CIA, NSA & FBI. Maybe that is simply a coincidence.

Disagree all you like, that is encouraged around here. Make pretend Snowden is a crook with zero evidence to back it, you'll get picked up on the point. Enough of us have followed the story.

Best of luck.