> Ah, you again! I see you’ve looked up all my comments to respond with vitriol to all of them
You think yourself more important than you really are. I've replied to many comments in this discussion, and three of them, I think, happened to be yours. Two of them happened in the same thread. This one.
> No, I am not selling user data, nor is the vast vast majority of companies affected by GDPR. Please do not assume bad faith as it ends useful discussion
Ah yes. Where good faith is "GDPR is bad because wellfare state and US intelligence"?
> So you believe GDPR and the ePrivacy directive (which people here unknowingly conflate) are the most perfect words ever put on paper and there is nothing that could be improved?
So, good faith and non-circular arguments are assigning words to opponents and trying to make them argue something they never said, apparently.
Imagine if anti-GDPR crowd actually argued in good faith. I can't. Because of behaviour like this.
You think yourself more important than you really are. I've replied to many comments in this discussion, and three of them, I think, happened to be yours. Two of them happened in the same thread. This one.
> No, I am not selling user data, nor is the vast vast majority of companies affected by GDPR. Please do not assume bad faith as it ends useful discussion
Ah yes. Where good faith is "GDPR is bad because wellfare state and US intelligence"?
> So you believe GDPR and the ePrivacy directive (which people here unknowingly conflate) are the most perfect words ever put on paper and there is nothing that could be improved?
So, good faith and non-circular arguments are assigning words to opponents and trying to make them argue something they never said, apparently.
Imagine if anti-GDPR crowd actually argued in good faith. I can't. Because of behaviour like this.