As if the intelligence community is not a breed unto themselves (and you knew what I meant).
But, if we're going to drag in racism and other bollocks to diffuse an interesting coincidence I brought up (and there are no coincidences when intelligence work is involved), then this is over. I won't play this petty game of yours. You win. Feel better?
As if the intelligence community is not a breed unto themselves (and you knew what I meant).
But, if we're going to drag in racism and other bollocks to diffuse an interesting coincidence I brought up (and there are no coincidences when intelligence work is involved), then this is over. I won't play this petty game of yours. You win. Feel better?
I'm impressed that Soli even bothered to take the time to dismantle your dismal excuse for an argument, of which not one single aspect made any sense. "Breed unto themselves"? Like Edward Snowden then? And you think Apple hired this guy why, precisely? Obviously because, unlike you, they just couldn't figure out that his real motive was to undermine their security, or maybe they just didn't check his references?
Just stop parading your ignorant presumptions about "the intelligence community" (which is not, and has never been, a cohesive entity) and all who ever worked in it.
As if the intelligence community is not a breed unto themselves (and you knew what I meant).
1) No, I clearly didn't know you meant to say something completely difference in your next post.
2) If saying "all of those people […] know each other" isn't a lumping mechanism that involves no real thought or consideration but instead a common idiom that I'm oddly not familiar then you didn't help your position.
But, if we're going to drag in racism and other bollocks to diffuse an interesting coincidence I brought up (and there are no coincidences when intelligence work is involved), then this is over. I won't play this petty game of yours. You win. Feel better?
So which is it? A coincidence or not? Let me remind you stated "the NSA has had direct influence with Apple security once this guy was hired."
Note that you didn't say "Apple hired someone who was familiar with security to help better their security." You didn't say "Apple hired someone from the Navy because they were the best candidate for the job." You didn't even say "I think Apple may have hired this person because they could have intimate knowledge of how the US security works or who has close ties to the NSA and other agencies which could help keep Apple's devices more protected."
You also made no mention to the original info being from 2008 and this guy was hired in 2011 or why Apple would need to publicly hire someone from the Navy in order to let the NSA spy on their customers. All you've done is draw the conclusion that paints the worst light without any regard for proof and ignored all common sense if it interfered with your conspirical conclusion.
It's perfectly fine to come at something with a hypothesis. And it's perfectly reasonable for you to think "I wonder if this hire is proof that Apple is in bed with the NSA and allowing them to snoop in on every person with an Apple device." But what isn't reasonable is that you have taken your first apophenial thought and maneuvered or removed facts to fit your hypothesis instead of trying to put any real effort into coming to an honest and objective conclusion. As a man of science this sickens me to the core.
Comments
But, if we're going to drag in racism and other bollocks to diffuse an interesting coincidence I brought up (and there are no coincidences when intelligence work is involved), then this is over. I won't play this petty game of yours. You win. Feel better?
But, if we're going to drag in racism and other bollocks to diffuse an interesting coincidence I brought up (and there are no coincidences when intelligence work is involved), then this is over. I won't play this petty game of yours. You win. Feel better?
I'm impressed that Soli even bothered to take the time to dismantle your dismal excuse for an argument, of which not one single aspect made any sense. "Breed unto themselves"? Like Edward Snowden then? And you think Apple hired this guy why, precisely? Obviously because, unlike you, they just couldn't figure out that his real motive was to undermine their security, or maybe they just didn't check his references?
Just stop parading your ignorant presumptions about "the intelligence community" (which is not, and has never been, a cohesive entity) and all who ever worked in it.
1) No, I clearly didn't know you meant to say something completely difference in your next post.
2) If saying "all of those people […] know each other" isn't a lumping mechanism that involves no real thought or consideration but instead a common idiom that I'm oddly not familiar then you didn't help your position.
So which is it? A coincidence or not? Let me remind you stated "the NSA has had direct influence with Apple security once this guy was hired."
Note that you didn't say "Apple hired someone who was familiar with security to help better their security." You didn't say "Apple hired someone from the Navy because they were the best candidate for the job." You didn't even say "I think Apple may have hired this person because they could have intimate knowledge of how the US security works or who has close ties to the NSA and other agencies which could help keep Apple's devices more protected."
You also made no mention to the original info being from 2008 and this guy was hired in 2011 or why Apple would need to publicly hire someone from the Navy in order to let the NSA spy on their customers. All you've done is draw the conclusion that paints the worst light without any regard for proof and ignored all common sense if it interfered with your conspirical conclusion.
It's perfectly fine to come at something with a hypothesis. And it's perfectly reasonable for you to think "I wonder if this hire is proof that Apple is in bed with the NSA and allowing them to snoop in on every person with an Apple device." But what isn't reasonable is that you have taken your first apophenial thought and maneuvered or removed facts to fit your hypothesis instead of trying to put any real effort into coming to an honest and objective conclusion. As a man of science this sickens me to the core.