I don't know what the rules are rb.
The request I assume is to read the host post and come to the same conclusion as he does because it's obvious.
I read the article and I don't see the obvious.
To me it means I'm: stupid, ignorant, cannot read, have no reading comprehension, and a litany of other adjectives since, it is "obvious." I read, re-read, stack, re-stack. Still not obvious.
So my simplest answer, is "no, it isn't obvious." Asking additional questions will get me no more understanding than many more quotations and citations of which I still will not read or understand "Isn't it rather obvious that, if one political party has the advantage of keeping it's own communications secure, but has the option of monitoring all of the internet and telecomm communications of the opposing political party, it will enjoy an extremely lopsided advantage in trying to win elections?"
Maybe if it was explained in more simpler terms it would become "obvious."
But as the question is posed, within the framework of all the quotations and citations, to this reader behind this keyboard, it isn't "obvious". In fact, it's almost like No Soap Radio
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
|