The comment I responded to went like this:

I was merely pointing out that his morality is not above question, and the conclusion that 'therefore he is a hero' is likewise flawed.

Actually, you're the one trying to derail the conversation. If you'd taken a second to read this thread, you'll notice that the initial comment I replied to stated:

The sub-discussion I was involved in is clearly about whether or not Snowden had a moral right to do what he did. My view is that while he was working for the NSA/Booz Allen, he was furthering their goals, and once he knew it was wrong, should have divorced himself from their employ. If his goal in continuing to work for them was only to gather evidence, the pay he collected should be considered dirty money and donated. The fact is he knew of their behavior, continued to work for them, took their money and kept it for himself, and then went public.

Or, more succinctly - he had no problem taking their money and continuing to work for them after he knew what they were doing was immoral.

The guy who posted this comment, for one. If you'd bothered to read the comments to which I'd responded, you might have noticed that you were the one hijacking the conversation, not me.

So he should've gotten another job. But continuing to do the work for which he was paid, for an agency he knew to be corrupt makes him complicit. He was perfectly happy to take dirty money, and he's got no moral high ground on which to stand.

He certainly had no qualms about cashing the checks from Booz Allen, despite the knowledge of their immoral behavior. He should donate the whole of his earnings from Booz Allen to charity (or the EFF or ACLU or some organization that defends personal privacy/liberties) before he or his supporters claim moral superiority.

That scenario would really only apply to people who keep their XBone online, wouldn't it?

You have a strange sense of humor. If it were true, it would be less funny than it would be larcenous.

Water under the water, covering the water?

I agree with you on both these counts, but I especially agree with the people who modded you '+5, Insightful'.

I prefer Soup 'R Crackers. http://youtu.be/h-ElqPW2ZSE

Stay back! I have powers...political powers! - H.J. Simpson

It's a little something called 'class,' you yokel. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a buttocks to tattoo.

My favorite "if we can only get a sliver" anecdote is from the late-90's tech bubble: Supposedly the business plan of BBQ.com was "Americans spend $4 billion a year on grills and grilling supplies. If we can capture just 10% of that..."

(I'm pretty sure I read that in a Po Bronson book/article, so take it with a salt lick.)

Aside from reclaiming legal costs, how about the plaintiff stands to lose the amount of compensatory and punitive damages they seek? That'll bring frivolous lawsuits to a halt with a quickness, and will probably keep amounts sought reasonable in legitimate suits. (Keep the appeals process in place, of course.)

That's precisely the point I was trying to make - I guess I didn't do a very good job of it. :)