Oh, my God! You're right! It's almost like I'm reacting to the tone of conversation that you set by calling me names, or something else equally logical!

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4056813

> A half a dozen people have asked you for an explanation and you refuse to even elaborate.

And, half a dozen people have gotten replies explaining that I am not legally permitted -- as in, I'll be held in contempt and go to jail if I do -- to elaborate on the firsthand knowledge I have regarding a similar situation. I've seen it happen personally, I advise against it as a result, I'm sorry, I can't elaborate further. The end. The irony here is that I went after tptacek for this a few days ago and now I'm in a similar situation myself.

I know what I'm talking about. I can't provide evidence to you, and I don't care if you believe me or not, but I will still share my opinion that it's legally questionable territory.

> I just don't understand where you're coming from on this topic and it's clear that many others don't either.

The several people and lawyer who agreed with my position make perfectly valid explanations that I did not think of, and not a single soul replied to them, but everybody's happy to pile on jsprinkles because his tone isn't perfect. Don't come back high and mighty about discourse when you started this conversation with three annoying, smarmy comments. Go fuck a rake.

Please, I'm begging you, bring back the Bitcoin remark so I can laugh at it again. And, keep deleting the comments that I'm referring to to undermine my position. Don't worry. I remember.