> I define lost value as harm, in the same way that if a person steals $1 from your pocket as you sleep, your body is unharmed, but you have lost $1 of value, and your trust has been violated, both harmful to you. I'm not privy to the specifics of how this loss has directly impacted the US, but it should go without saying that the loss of value is harmful to the secret holder.

Let me be more clear. I don't care if the NSA is harmed while the NSA is committing a crime against the citizens of the United States. I care if the citizens of the United States are harmed.

Obviously the NSA was harmed by Snowden's revelations, but that's not something I care about, nor do I think it's something that anyone else should care about. The entire point of the NSA is to protect US citizens, so if they are harmed while they are harming US citizens, good, they deserve it. They certainly haven't been harmed enough that it could be considered paying for their crimes.

> GPG wouldn't have saved anyone from PRISM, though.

Yes it would have. If someone wanted their communications to be private, and decided to communicate by sending GPG-encrypted messages over OnionIRC, how would PRISM have decrypted those messages?

> This does not answer my question, "Did Snowden try any of these official channels?"

Okay. That's a yes or no question, and the answer is "no"--I thought that was clear from what I posted, but you're right that it wasn't. What I posted is why he didn't try any of these official channels.

> I admit, strictly speaking, Snowden didn't flee directly to Assange, but to his trusted advisors & lawyers. Seems pedantic to me to require that kind of specificity, but perhaps that's what you needed to hear.

I'm not going to accept this backpedal. Saying that he "escaped to Assange" indicates a much stronger association between Assange and Snowden than there is actual evidence for. This isn't being pedantic, it's demanding that what you say be representative of the actual facts.

You continue to speak significantly more conclusively than is evident. So far you've only presented evidence that he took a plane ride with one advisor of Assange's, and no lawyers, and left out the very notable fact that the advisor is also a journalist. It should be utterly unsurprising that journalists who work with the head of a leak organization would also attempt to talk with the source of a major leak--this is pretty weak evidence of any collaboration between Assange and Snowden.

> I am no liar.

I didn't call you a liar. A liar is someone who lies consistently, and you've only lied once that I know of.

> A lie requires intent to deceive.

I don't think that adults need to make the distinction between "You knew this was false and said it anyway" and "You didn't know whether this was true and you said it anyway". You should say things that you know are true.

Your argument is purely semantic anyway. If you really want to argue that you couldn't be arsed to research before you made that claim, then I'd say that isn't better than lying no matter what you call it.

> Late in my first comment begins an admission of ignorance and a question: "My knowledge is limited here, but..."

Please quote yourself in context. You said, "My knowledge is limited here, but does Snowden claim he used any of the actual, legal whistleblower processes before escaping to Julian Assange?" It's clear that what you're admitting ignorance of is whether Snowden followed legal process, not whether he escaped to Julian Assange.

> Your response calls me a liar multiple times, dodges the question twice, literally calls shame onto my post, then shrinks from the charge that you're behaving disrespectfully. Your insults have been received and recognized as such.

I'm not sure which question you're claiming I'm dodging. If you can enlighten me, I'll be happy to answer.

As for the rest of this complaint: if accurately describing your behavior casts you in such a bad light that you consider it an insult, maybe behave better?