• MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    Dude, it literally says it in the article in the post. If you can’t be bothered to read it that’s not my problem. I’m not going to go through and post quotes and links to an article that the post has already provided. It’s not difficult, just click the link in the post

    • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I’ve obviously read the article. I posted quotes from the article.

      You don’t need to do anything - but if you’re going to make a claim that someone has explicitly countered with a direct quote, the sensible thing would be to continue the conversation.

      At best, you’re trolling. We can conclude this conversation if you’re too lazy to actually back up anything you’ve said with tangible evidence. Until then you’re just saying words. That’s the only factual take away anyone should have from your claim.

      • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s literally in the article my source is right there. The only person trolling at this point is you. There is literally nothing I can quote here that isn’t in the article, so copying and pasting it for you serves no purpose. I am done arguing with you about it, so I am blocking you now.

        Have a nice day

        • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Figures - somehow the guy trying to have an informed conversation with someone about their views on an article when clear confusion about said view is expressed, they refuse to elaborate or participate in civil discourse.

          Some people just want to speak to hear their own voice I suppose. If anyone else shares this view, and does wish to participate, I’d be happy to continue