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.
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.