People who use the Socratic method usually have a point. Indeed, people usually argue or debate because they have a point.
I’m sorry if you missed my point. I believed it clear enough. Let me, therefore, spell it out for you (I refer the honourable whatever to my initial post).
I am not amazed that “President Obama and other NSA defenders are still arguing that the program is perfectly fine”. Amongst the many reasons why I am not amazed are that President Obama and other NSA defenders have done things which some might regard as having somewhat more enormity than eavesdropping, and that they have done it at a distance, and for reasons which are not under public scrutiny, and which involve deliberate removal of certain individuals’ lifely substances’ (to misquote E L Wisty).
I honestly believe that if you actually answered any of the questions I asked, you would see that there are inconsistencies in your beliefs.
Why would I answer questions which have nothing to do with the point I was making? Unless you’re going to argue that the aforementioned actors have never done anything other than eavesdrop, that they have never done any of that heavier stuff?
And I’m somewhat surprised that you believe my beliefs inconsistent. Largely because I’m not aware of having expressed any. I’m hardly responsible for your inferences about my beliefs.
What gave me the impression you were damning Obama for his drone strikes? Maybe the part where you said that he “remotely executes folk without due process.” That might have something to do with it.
Why do you infer I’m condemning him for remotely executing folk without due process? Where’d you get that from? Insofar as I’m willing to express my opinion on the matter, I will certainly concede that it’lll be tending towards the ‘I’m not terribly happy about that sort of thing and I’d rather he/they didn’t do it’. Is that ‘damning Obama’? Even if it is (and it’s a pretty wishy-washy hell, maybe domestic oven heat, I’d be condemning him to), it’s only here and now that you’ve finally got it out of me. Your inference - even if true (which it isn’t) - was rather premature.
What am I saying? I mean incredibly, breathtakingly premature.
I have no idea what your point is. Is it that if I quote you and ask that a term you used be defined, I have to use your name, and capitalize your name?
No. It just means you don’t get to pretend that I was the first person to refer directly to the other person in the engagement just because you didn’t happen to use the second person pronoun. If you want to say that your remarks were not directed at me personally though then I’m more than willing to accept your apology. Does that give you an idea of what my point was?