If this has been good faith engagement from you,
Just for the last post, not the first few.
I worry for those subjected to your less agreeable side.
They usually quit the forum.
No wtf lol, how hard is that sentence to parse? We'll do it together
>I can't think of any folks who have access to the information I'm basing my thoughts on the matter on
(Meaning I do not know of anybody who has the information that I have)
>who also consider the J-20 as a platform to be superior in sheer A2A capability-set.
(Meaning of those people who have access to the information that I have, none to my knowledge consider the J-20 a superior platform in sheer A2A)
It's... it's really not hard man. I'm not sure how to communicate this stuff if the information bottleneck is literally your reading comprehension. I'm not even trying to be mean right now, like, if you literally cannot understand the sentences I'm writing at a grammatical level, I'm not sure how productive this even *can* be.
Well, if your reading comprehension was so awesome, you'd see that you worded it in a way that can be interpreted to mean the opposite of what you intended. If I say, "I can't think of anyone else who ate at Taco Bell who also got sick." It very much can mean that they all didn't get sick and I did. Your sentence, aside from you intended meaning, also can mean that you dissented from your colleagues in their opinion. If you wanted to write your sentence in an unambiguous way, you could just take out the "also."
I just wanted you to clarify that because it was my first interpretation.
No, because as I just said, you have uh... incorrectly interpreted my previous sentence somehow lol.
The somehow is because you worded it in an ambiguous way. But that's fine now.
no bro they actually pay quite well for that sort of thing, claim your govbux!
I don't sell my soul to the devil for any amount.
Or perhaps your understanding of the US classification system, and/or the material I'm discussing isn't quite as good as you seem to think it is.
Ok, if it's not considered an intelligence breach in the US for a (former) intelligence analyst to publish his and his colleague's conclusions based on classified data on the internet, that's cool with me.
No not really. If your first impression of me is wrong, then you are wrong. It's as simple as that lol.
I'm not asking you to do a background check, but I *am* saying your portrayal of me as a liar, and forming the basis of your position on that portrayal is more than a little senseless when all it takes is a quick check through my profile to see I at least know what I'm talking about.
And how is it proven that you know what you are talking about or that your career was as you said it is? What did you say in your previous posts would prove it other than your claims which are already made in this thread?
No, I'm saying that YOU don't know enough to conclude anything.
Ok, I see and now I'm saying that the privileged information that you think is correct, very well may not be, as we have seen in public examples of US intelligence's previous gaffs on the J-20.