I mean, the points at the bottom of the article are exactly the same. I would consider your temperement and not indulge flights of fancy that I am attacking you or your institutions.
I am speaking as a citizen, from an outside perspective, on what concerns me; because ultimately I see Signal pushed very hard and only lip service paid to any issues.
> The details you're providing about BBG, RFA, and OTF aren't relevant, and just add detail to what I said. In case you were relating them to educate me: there's no need, I have firsthand knowledge of the programs you're slandering (whether you mean to or not).
I thought it might provide some context, given that I am agreeing that the stated mission of OTF aligns somewhat and does not directly contradict the stated goals of Signal.
What are my "actions" that people can draw conclusions from? This sounds very emotive and slightly threatening.
Given that it makes no material difference to the point being made I don't know why it's being so emotionally driven;
I would correct the article even if it completely invalidated my point.
I would correct the article if you hadn't been emotional too.
It's just good to make sure that if you make a mistake that you own up to it and you ensure that misinformation does not spread.
I think (I hope) you agree with that.
Which is why I'm confused as to why you keep pressing the issue as I had already corrected the article after seeing your comment for the first time (before I even replied, in fact).
The reason you can't understand what I'm arguing about is because I'm... not arguing.
The details you're providing about BBG, RFA, and OTF aren't relevant, and just add detail to what I said. In case you were relating them to educate me: there's no need, I have firsthand knowledge of the programs you're slandering (whether you mean to or not).