whether or not it would surprise me depends entirely on the nature of the threats. as both dave and i have said explicitly already.
Right. So it's fair to say, then, that you do not see any reason why an insider threat may be inherently more urgent than an outsider threat.
stop pretending to be dense.
same
some combinations of internal/external threats would be surprising. others would not. this particular combination surprises me. so my answer is yes. you can take my answer to be "yes, it surprises me." as in: affirmative. i am giving you a positive answer. of the two images you displayed, i choose the top one. or: yes.
Jesus Christ,
finally. You know, if it didn't take you like a whole day to answer a yes/no question, you'd probably find yourself more capable of holding a conversation (other than having a conversation with someone who already agrees with you, of course).
lol you're almost literally just asking "which is worse, A or B? JUST ANSWER A OR B, OR ELSE YOU ARE A LIAR."
Not at all. I'm asking you whether or not you understand why this particular property may affect the urgency of the situation. You've finally answered, and you answer is "no, I do not understand why an insider threat may be more urgent than an outsider threat".
For the avoidance of doubt, even though I was extremely clear about this already: you lied where you quoted yourself repeatedly saying "I am surprised" as to imply you've already answered my question, despite the fact that each instance of "I am surprised" was followed by a clarification that you're talking about anything but the subject of the question. If you don't want to be accused of lying, just be honest. It's easy!
i dunno what to tell you. if you don't tell me what A and B are, then i can't give you any answer. ask less shitty questions.
It was a simple question. Sorry it caused you so much trouble. I'll make sure to approach you like a five-year-old in the future straight away, since that seems to have worked.
Isn't that right, little Gary-poo?or here's a thought: maybe just say what your point is instead of constantly obfuscating it with sarcasm and loaded questions. i mean don't quit being sarcastic; just like, you know, also make a point somewhere along the way.
Again, it's a trivial rhetorical mechanism. It's supposed to make you think about your own reasoning and explain it, so that the conversation is bilateral. My counterpoints will vary vastly depending on what exactly your reasoning is. For example, in this case it may have been that you do not think insider threats are more urgent in general (this turned out to be the case, as per your very reluctant qualification), or you may have thought that insider threats are
generally more urgent, but that this specific case is an exception (what I
thought your reasoning would be). If I had simply assumed the latter, I would have spent a lot of time arguing against something you don't believe, and then you'd go to town on me for misrepresenting your arguments or whatever. Naturally, your obstructionism caused me to waste a lot of time anyway, but that's on you.
I can't believe that I have to explain this to anyone older than 10.
Nuh-uh, I won't explain my reasoning! Just give me your counterpoints to my reasoning already, DU-UHNow, with that out of the way, you believe that insider threats are not inherently more urgent than outsider threats. This entirely explains your inability to understand why the GOP trying to make Comey look like an insider threat is working so spectacularly well. An insider threat is much more easily addressed than an outsider threat once it's been detected, and the narrative plays right into Trump's hands: the 4D-Chess mastermind not only fired a leaker before the leaks were admitted, he also got Comey to admit that he was never under investigation in the first place! You can think it's "fucking hilarious" all you want, but unless you guys learn to actually
deal with this sort of rhetoric, you're in for a rough GOP ride.
Urgency is a factor of big-league-ness, damage potential, and time until damage.
For example, which is a bigger threat: ISIS or American murderers? Both kill people. ISIS is far away and has only killed like... What, 200 Americans? But American Murders have killed thousands this year alone. Should we focus our military on defeating ISIS or American murderers? The biggest threat seems to be the Americans, the internal threat as they kill more people more frequently. But ISIS could cause alot of immediate damage and death. (Bombs and mass shootings).
Congratulations, you almost managed to understand the point of the question. Now, consider this situation:
You're Dave McSuperdave, internationally-renowned vigilante in tight red pants. Donaldo Le Trumpo, evil super-genius, is about to fire his experimental chemical weapon at Dave City, killing millions and also making the frogs gay. You were sent to stop him, but unfortunately the evil NRAMan has intercepted you and put the gun to your head.
Which of the two threats is
bigger? Well, Le Trumpo and his chemical weapon, of course. He's about to turn the freaking frogs gay.
Which of the two threats is
more urgent? That would be NRAMan - he's both more accessible to deal with (he's right next to you already), and he directly threatens your chances of ever stopping Le Trumpo.
Insider threats, generally speaking, are more urgent than outsider threats purely because of the effort required to resolve them (once they've been uncovered). This is intuitive to most humans, no matter how hard you may want to try to pretend otherwise. Therefore, to create an
impression of an insider threat is a great distraction from potential outsider threats.
Sorry but you can't break it down into a simple yes or no queastion.
I just did, and Gary just answered. This shit really isn't hard.