The statement engages in a discussion about the interpretation of evidence related to data exfiltration from the DNC, focusing on the distinction between concrete evidence and indicators. The tone is critical and aims to clarify the meaning of 'evidence' in the context of a public debate.
- The statement attempts to clarify a misunderstanding, which aligns with striving to do no harm by promoting accurate information. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- By explaining the difference between evidence and inference, the statement promotes understanding and clarity. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement criticizes another's understanding but does not engage in personal attacks, maintaining a focus on the issue. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.