Multiple Subkey Pairs

[Robert J. Hansen]

> That is an odd comparison. What does a statement about a fundamental
> law of physics which you can't change have to do with a statement
> about what you are doing, where you are perfectly free to do something
> else than you say?

Try some variations.

I deny that I've ever been to Vienna; is it logical to believe, based on
that, that I've traveled extensively in Europe?

I deny that I've ever seen _Star Wars Episode III_.  Is it logical to
believe, based only on that, that I've seen every other installment?

I deny that I've ever read the second stanza of Coleridge's 'Kubla
Khan'.  Is it logical to believe, based only on that, that I've read the
first?

This is all rather irrelevant, though, since it's clear you _a priori_
believe nothing claimed by that outfit.  (Which may be justified, mind
you.  Saying "I do not trust them and I consider all of their statements
a nullity: I will only trust what I can independently verify" is a
perfectly logical position.)

> You have not spend time understanding how YYY work it seems to me.

There are two options here: either I confess my ignorance, in which case
you'll claim to be more knowledgeable and thus right, or I claim my
knowledge, in which case you'll think I'm clearly "too close to them to
be trusted."

At this point, I don't care what you think.  My original statement -- "I
have seen no credible claims that anyone anywhere in the world is doing
bulk surveillance of email content on an internet-wide scale" -- stands.

I stand by that.  No more and no less than that.