> I will still not say that reasonable people can't disagree over the question at hand but the arguments presented in this article don't strike me as being anywhere near strong enough to make this the sort of grey area the author would like.
You have three negations in this sentence, which means it's nearly impossible to parse or understand. It's been my observation statements like these follow rationalizations about a point in which there exists dissonance. Given you seem to be disagreeing with something Thomas said or the way he said it, but not actually disagreeing with a point he made, I'd say that is the case here as well.
Violations of our privacy via rationalizations of security makes me sad and bored. I think we can all agree that things could be better with the situation, and I for one appreciate Thomas' efforts in bringing the truth to light.
> I will still not say that reasonable people can't disagree over the question at hand but the arguments presented in this article don't strike me as being anywhere near strong enough to make this the sort of grey area the author would like.
I didn't think it was that hard to read. It made sense on my first read, but here's my translation:
"I can see how arguments exist on both sides, but I don't think the author supported his argument with enough evidence to make it very relevant."
You have three negations in this sentence, which means it's nearly impossible to parse or understand. It's been my observation statements like these follow rationalizations about a point in which there exists dissonance. Given you seem to be disagreeing with something Thomas said or the way he said it, but not actually disagreeing with a point he made, I'd say that is the case here as well.
Violations of our privacy via rationalizations of security makes me sad and bored. I think we can all agree that things could be better with the situation, and I for one appreciate Thomas' efforts in bringing the truth to light.