Locksteady
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 698
You shouldn't.I just wanted to add that I find your quote both hilarious and kinda sad.
I hear that and think most of us fall in that category here by default, if only for the very helpful SS requirement that we cite open source material when making claims.I'm a semi-retarded window licker. Anything and everything I post is open source.
I think you misread my meaning, and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because, based on recent related convos we've had, I don't think you were necessarily aware that folks holding a clearance are considered to be improperly accessing or misusing classified information if they encounter it through unclassified channels, or in this case via a public website, and could lose their clearance eligibility as a result.Making me out to be a threat towards informational analysis and security is kinda pathetic.
View attachment 47080
So no, that wasn't at all meant as a knock on you. I actually enjoy your thoroughness and level of detail you provide in many discussions you have here. I only added the caveat to discourage current clearance holders from following suit in you possibly following my suggestion to see the facts for yourself on their website.
My bad if I didn't make that clear.