Esquire? Well, I am sold. They do know who looks smart.

It's not usually customary to invite those under investigation to the investigation... or did I miss something? They are not on trial. What's being looked into is whether the overall process is broken. That's a behavioral question. Maybe they could have invited some psychologists, economists or ethisists to the inquiry. But why invite the scientists who are under the investigation?

Is that there is still dial-up AOL.

2 years is a long run? Hard drives used to have 5 year warranty. Many still have 2 year warranty. Cutting off a people who use the device to store their personal info after 2 years is a "long run"? Aha.

Yes, there is. Hundreds of thousands of people without any kind of security clearance knew about the building in SLC and what it does. It's not even below ground. It's huge.... humangous even. The news of what it does would have been common place by now with or without Snowden.

We would know exactly everything that we already know, but we wouldn't think of some guy, whose name sounds like a title of a fiction novel, when we thought about it. The building in SLC is HUGE. You can see it from space. There is no way the government had any intention of hiding it. If it did, it wouldn't be above ground. Snowden's job is to be a distraction from the topic.

Collecting call meta data is technically indistinguishable from peeking at someone's phone bill (it just views the information in electronic, rather than paper, format). Opening someone's phone bill (without a warrant) is illegal. Just because the court said "unc" and followed it with "le", you are arguing that the court hasn't said "uncle." That's a pretty weak argument.

I still think he is an active NSA operative. By making it a story about himself, he diverted attention of a HUGE percentage of the population away from the program he exposed and towards himself. His "coming out" might as well have been code-named "operation lightening rod."

I thought it was illegal to profit from a criminal activity. How is it that there is such a thing a Goebbels's estate at all? All of Goebbels's notoriety comes from his participation in a government the actions of which were declared to be a crime against humanity. How is anyone allowed to profit from that?

If you read the original post, you'll see that I took an issue with so many medical findings being reported as having found causality because a correlation was found. It's a fact that this is how they are often reported. Is it the fault of the popular press for stretching the truth or miscommunicating it? Well, it can't be laymen's fault if they so often err on the same side. Even if the medical journals don't make this error, the error still lies with how the laymen reporters are informed. And then the fault is with those who inform them (because they know they are speaking to laymen, they have to pick their words carefully). Oh, and I continue to insist that the word "reduces" is an assertion of cause and not an assertion of likelihood. So the title of the article does, in fact, assert that a causation may be inferred from the discovered correlation.

Aha. I'll get right on it. You know... so that I can impress all those who would rather pretend that a clearly stated assertion does not amount to an assertion because that would mean that they lost the argument. I am convinced that if I try just a little bit harder. If I (maybe?) take a remedial reading class?.. then and only then will they'll be impressed. Because if they ever got on a path of trying to defend the indefensible (go ahead... cut n paste this sentence... pretend there is irony because you are clever)... so if they got on a path of defending the indefensible, they'd agree that they erred as soon as a water-tight argument was presented to them. They are never wrong. Just misunderstood. So I'll go ahead and try to understand them better. Getting right on it.

Just one one thing before I do.

I've emphasized the verbs in that "argument" you were making. Reading comprehension. How bout them apples?

Oh, wait, I know what's comming... Let me guess, ok? It's fun. You claim that I make no sense. Then you claim that I am "still" not understanding your point. Then you realize that you can also throw in the (ever so ironic by now) accusation of ad hominem in my direction. Did I get close? Actually, I don't care what you think. Your arguments have proven my point well enough (yeah, yeah... you'll call me "delusional"... I know... it's always someone else... it's never you).

Oh, and as to this:

The first victim of expediency is usually grammar. As a casual commentator, you should be quite familiar with the concept. Because this:

does not indicate that you took your time to parse precisely enough the sentence

Had you done so, you would see that you were putting forward a counter-argument to a point which had not been made.

The word "reduces" in the title of the article clearly asserts causation.

Why is medical reporting so rife with them? They have to pass some science courses before becoming doctors, don't they? Why are so many medical studies reported as "we found a correlation so there must be a causation." Not only does correlation is not causation. Correlation do not imply causation.

If she burns down Reddit, she gets to make a public argument that the creditors made her a target because she took on a cause. She gets to drag VC firm's name through the mud of public opinion and put them in jeopardy of public hysteria outrage (divestment campaigns, etc.) In order to avoid this jeopardy, she hopes the firm will offer her a cushy contract (ie, hush money) in which they severely overpay for some of her property, services, etc. in exchange for her declaring that "things have changed a lot since she was made a target" or something to that effect.