edit: Deleted due to the overwhelming amount of Guardian readers/conspiracy nuts in the comments section, who aren't able to listen to reasoned debate.
Could you give an example of the sensitive information that we definitely should not be talking about? I can't think of anything from the Guardian's reporting of this matter that falls into that category right now.
Edit: You say "Guardian readers/conspiracy nuts in the comments section, who aren't able to listen to reasoned debate". That's a well-reasoned rebutal right there to the people who replied to you with facts. Could you expand on it? I'm listening.
The type of person that supports these sorts of activities is the sort of person I would also expect to delete their message instead of standing their ground regardless of adversarial opinions.
Agreed, though I don't want to see people merely stand their ground, I want to see them engage with adversarial opinions. I want both of us to have the possibility of learning where we got it wrong. Leaving in a huff is even worse than standing your ground.
The idea that this makes one "Guardian readers/conspiracy nuts" is laughable.
SideburnsOfDoom|12 years ago
Edit: You say "Guardian readers/conspiracy nuts in the comments section, who aren't able to listen to reasoned debate". That's a well-reasoned rebutal right there to the people who replied to you with facts. Could you expand on it? I'm listening.
luckyno13|12 years ago
SideburnsOfDoom|12 years ago
The idea that this makes one "Guardian readers/conspiracy nuts" is laughable.
devonbarrett|12 years ago
unknown|12 years ago
[deleted]