[antonovka]

You're ranting like a loon about brainwashing, cheering on the hacking of private e-mail, and you're getting upvoted for it?

If my e-mail was hacked and out-of-context quotes were levied to take ignorant pot shots at my work, I would be beyond livid. This behavior is absolutely inappropriate and I hope the perpetrator is caught and jailed.

[robotrout]

Thanks for sharing your valuable insights on this issue.

Of course, the email wasn't private, was it? It's a government funded (your money) institution. That actually, perversely, makes this crime even more illegal. Governments seem to have more rights than private citizens.

So, you're right, it was a crime. You're also right, I'm cheering it. But you're wrong about who is ranting. It's you who is ranting.

[antonovka]

Of course, the email wasn't private, was it? It's a government funded (your money) institution.

This justifies breaking federal law and then excising context as to leverage out-of-context statements to dishonestly support your position?

It's no wonder that climate scientists are mildly paranoid about the behavior of "deniers".

But you're wrong about who is ranting. It's you who are ranting.

You've convinced me sir. I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[robotrout]

I think it's obvious from your constant "out of context" remarks, that you haven't actually read the emails. Instead of me starting a newsletter for you, why don't you download them and read those instead?

[antipaganda]

Well, as long as we see ALL the emails, they can't be taken out of context, eh? (What? Communications methods other than emails? Preposterous.)