It's useless to respond to you. I've answered your question at least 2 times. It's there in plain English. When one injects new issues (ergo, white hat, military) into the polemic, they've lost the context and are hoping to move it to new grounds. It's a desperate defense mechanism. Your wrong about warfare being just 'military' or 'white hats'. What is a 'White Hat' anyway? Why don't explain that to me, while I hold back laughter. It's another term without a real definition. If we talk about 'white hats', why not talk about the 'War on terror'. You can declare war on 'terror' while I declare war on 'laughter' and 'hate' and 'antipathy'.
So long, my communique has ended. 'Trust the plan' and while your at it-- 'Win one for the Gipper'.
See there we are, still skirting around the issue and now doesn't want to continue when pressed, You're so insecure of being wrong that you will type paragraphs out about 'warfare and psi-ops' and 'encrypted communications not being for the public' but is unwilling to openly say out loud what groups or people are involved when asked, so i can get an understanding on who you are talking about. Weird flex man.
edit: LMAO, wont actually say out loud who or what groups q refers too but wastes time asking what a 'white hat' is ....as if he doesnt know....
(post is archived)