there's zero reason why people should allow compliance models to back them into a rhetorical corner. debbie and her bullshit today is a perfect example of what happens when someone reasonable and informed sticks to the truth: they are unable to defend their attacks against honesty and reason. just because you don't like hearing accuracy stated bluntly doesn't mean it's not exactly what people want to know - and it's profoundly unfair to subject the very people you secretly seek out to public torture and abandonment and scrutiny because you're a chickenshit opportunist.

people take and use my information all of the time and then they twist it into their filtered trash ideologies. which is their prerogative. my point is: why don't people ask the proper question of why they look for the source of what their peddling if they just want to warp it into their own messaging? the answer is: they don't trust the exact same processes of others they themselves use to distort information into code - so they try to find clear, concise, simple explanations which make sense and are as universally applicable as possible. it's why, in the end, everyone scrambles for plain english analysis - and i am able to interpret a wide array of codes into it.

the irony is: the very people who pretend they are the "original source" of the information are unable to do the same when left to do it themselves. and those very same people ruin lives like mine because it's popular to be mean to those of us who won't speak in code - but they clandestinely, desperately want what i provide to them for free.

i ask again: where are all of the intelligence analysts?