NSA parody-logo shirts from EFF!
Hugh from the Electronic Frontier Foundation sez, "By popular demand, we have made our NSA logo parody available on a t-shirt! It's only available with a membership donation of $65 or more -- money that will be put to work in the fight against illegal spying." EFF's New NSA Spying Shirts (Thanks, Hugh!)
the latest
latest episodes
I want the Mark II - with the exposed circuitry and red LED eyes.
please
I've loved that logo since the first time I saw it. Great that it's on a T, and black, at that. This is going on my X-mas list. =D
*checks bank account*
....connecting....
....processing....
...authenticated...
Yep, time for an EFF donation. Really glad they've put out this shirt. I will wear it proudly on the weekend, and during the week (under something more "work appropriate")
there really should be a wretched commoner grasped in the talons, with entrails rampant.
This is kinda unpatriotic isn't it? These are the good guys were talking about. Why be so anti "The Man"? We do have more privacy than just about any other country don't we?
#5: I know you might be kidding (I have a poor sarcasm detector) but in case you're not, let me just point out that the existence of a worse government does not make the bad things our government does suddenly good.
We do have more privacy than just about any other country don't we?
Um, no.
If you contribute to the EFF via the Combined Federal Campaign, can you get one of these?
Do you think all phone taps and all internet monitoring should be stopped completely? Or do you just want the government to get a warrant for each phone and e-mail tap? I won't repeat the normal opposing remarks that comes up on these privacy threads - I've never had a good response to those arguments. So I'll just ask, Do you believe the loss of some privacy is worth the extra security that is gained by the "illegal spying"?
So I'll just ask, Do you believe the loss of some privacy is worth the extra security that is gained by the "illegal spying"?
Prove that the illegal surveillance has provided extra security, and I'll be happy to answer your query.
And please note: "extra security", not "extra security theater".
About my above posts, forgive me if those are considered Trolling. I'm still not exactly clear on what is or isn't considered a troll post. I don't believe I've ever intentionally made a troll post. I'll go study the moderation policy a bit more.
Take the labels off and examine their behavior.
"Friendly fire" still means you got shot.
Zuzu, I read your links and what your profile page says about cryptography. Now, I'm being totally honest here - I don't understand and am unable to grasp your point of view on the subject. Unless you're e-mailing secret business info or something else you'd like to keep secret, why would you care if someone else looks at it? Also, do you believe that our government is unable to decrypt your e-mails?
I want to add, I completely respect your desire for total privacy - and I don't think its wrong, I just don't understand it. Do you really believe our government has an ulterior motive for their spying, as in some Orwellian type of agenda?
#12 Tom Hale
I do think that there is freely available encryption software that is difficult to decrypt (by difficult I mean consumes a lot of computing power and time). And I do believe that terrorists and criminal organizations make extensive use of it.
This means that the government's effort to read emails and wiretap phone calls is meaningless, except against stupid terrorists and criminals - and those aren't exactly a threat worth sacrificing civil rights for.
2.) Your question seems to me to boil down to, "innocent men have nothing to hide". This is a well debunked claim.
Yes. In a nutshell, that's what "strong cryptography" means. Assuming the mathematics are sound, and that you're not being waterboarded into revealing your secret key + passphrase, large key sizes would require all of the computing power on Earth to compute longer than your lifetime to discover the correct key by brute force. Precisely as much of an "ulterior motive" as motivated the framers of the Constitution to include the 2nd and 3rd Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
-- George WashingtonI like the EFF, and have been a member on and off for years. Having said that, the EFF logo has to be one of the worst logos ever. I would probably buy this shirt if it didn't have the EFF logo on it, or if the EFF logo were better.
I will certainly be buying one of these fine shirts.
The question of whether or not the government has some "Orwellian agenda" is utterly beside the point. The entire premise that the executive branch of the government (acting without any restraint)has some "right" to indiscriminately spy on its own population for the sake of "security" is heinous. Whose security are they protecting?
You suspect someone is a terrorist? Fine. Go through the proper legal channels and get your wiretap. Remember these checks and balances were put in place to protect US. Take them away, and put a McCarthy or Hoover in charge, and suddenly all of us might be made to fit the definition of terrorist. And please do not tell me that you believe politicians in this country are angelic enough not to abuse this power for their own ends. See, for example, Watergate in connection with the FBI. Security indeed.
Anyone who claims ignorance of the definition of trolling after ten months of comments on this site, either has a learning disability or they are lying. And if they are lying, they are then expecting others to be stupid.
Having opinions different from those in the majority does not a troll make. Sometimes a troll reveals their motivation early, but more often they display a pattern of argument for arguments sake, while feigning ignorance.
Maybe I'm naive, but ~I~ don't see Tom Hale as a Troll, and I've been getting embarrassed and a little vicariously ashamed recently, watching people line up to kick him.
Remember that he was raised by republicans, as Tarzan was raised by apes, as Romulus and Remus were raised by wolves, as Carrot was raised by dwarves...
Would it really be so unpalatable to explain, rather than to villify?
(* I am British, but if I ~was~ a US citizen, would never in a lifetime of Tuesdays vote Republican.)
(I feel I must qualify my last statement to say that I currently don't envisage circumstances where I would vote Republican. If the Democrats were running a dangerous pillock like Palin in this situation, chances are I would.)
FoetusNail, Bull. Troll - someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion,
Earlier today I had a question DV'd and was accused of trolling. In that case I was seriously requesting more info. I have never intentionally made a troll post - Yet, I was suspended for a week for trolling a while back. I have to assume that on BB, sometimes simply disagreeing with the majority can be considered trolling.
In a sense you are correct in one of your suggestions - I sometimes make a point to say that I am not intentionally posting an opposing opinion simply to inflame the conversation and am concerned about being DV'd. Here's why: I feel that with some topics, especially those that people are often particularly concerned about, like privacy, any opposing comment may be seen as trolling - whether it is actually trolling as defined.
the problem is; we find it hard to believe you are that dumb. There have been one or two through here playing the naif - with less success than they realized.
All of a sudden - the topic is about Tom - Honestly, I'm honored, but let's get back on topic.
And Takuan, Dumb? You've lowered yourself to throwing personal insults? I really expect much better from you. You must be in the middle of a movie or something.
Tom Hale, I wouldn't quite go feeling all gushy about it just yet. I am not a smart man but it seems to me that your intention was to make the topic a bit more about Tom Hale than the post warranted.
The term "unpatriotic" in reference to a t-shirt is somewhat "controversial" and smells of troll.
Hey, at least the responses were clever and entertaining (mine excluded).
"You who styles Tom Hale", greetings from the entity known as "Takuan".
Felicitations and threats, I see you. Do you see me?
"Bull, Palin is as innocent and pure as the driven snow. She's a cute sweet innocent thrust into a much higher level of politics than she seems capable of dealing with."
I accept the move and counter.
Zuzu, thank you. I love quotes and some of them are very inspiring, but I know that the person that wrote the quote is just a man, like you or myself. I stopped accepting quotes as a statement that proves a point or makes an argument true or untrue years ago. Your next comment could easily be more inspiring or hold more truth than any quote someone may dig up. Why do you think Fredrick Douglas has a better grasp on reality than you have?
Tom - isn't the Bible just a catalogue of quotes?
An anthology if you prefer...?
It seems like they've all fucked off now Tom...
#26 Takuan - I can't hope to compete with you. If you'll recall, I've complemented you on your writing ability on more than one occasion. Above any other art, I would love to have the ability to write in a fashion where the reader no longer reads your words, but is instead caught up in the vision that you have created. I fall well short of that ability, but I have had the pleasure to see that in some of your writings. Which is why I expressed my dismay at your use of the word "dumb."
Come on! can't you give me a link to something you have written - at least a hint.
What do you, yourself, believe?
I don't think you're dumb, Tom. Which is why I find it so hard to believe that you align yourself with the Virgin Birth and Eternal Life brigade
I see you. I wait.
It's perfectly possible to believe that human life is sacred, without believing that it goes on forever.
And I believe that it's best to live to avoid aborting pregnancies - but of the 3 women I've personally known, who've felt the need to pursue that path, none did it without the direst need, or without terrible sadness.
#32 Sammich, About the Bible? I believe it was written to reach the simple minds of men living centuries ago. It has also been rewritten several times with some parts added, some taken out. I believe in the 10 commandments. I also believe that if someone's good outweighs their bad, their afterlife will be better than their current existence. I believe in most of the Bible, but I don't take it as literally as most Christians.
And for the record, all but one of my cousins, and ~all~ of whom I love dearly, believe in 'god' and consider themselves to be christians. I respect but do not share their beliefs, but our common familial/cultural/humanitarian ethics run deep.
Tom @ 37 - Glad (and not surprised) to hear it! It seems to me that many of the rules expounded in the bible were appropriate 2,000, or 4,000 or 6,000 years ago.
Like not eating pork - which in that environment would have been an invitation,if undercooked, to tapeworm infestation.
Tom - it's 5.30 am where I am, but, if you're still interested in the discussion, I'll be back... ?
?
23:42 here - time for bed - thanks for the conversation.
TOM HALE: In answer to your question, it might be best to look into the long and enlightened discussions that went on here concerning the FISA bill. I especially recommend this one, which speaks more to your exact query.
A couple of summary facts from those discussions:
1) bush started illegally spying on Americans early in 2001, many months before 9-11, the Patriot Act, etc. so the claim that it is a tool for the new War On Terror is completely bogus.
2) The FISA court which was already functioning to grant such warrants had only turned down like 6 requests out of literally thousands that were applied for previously, so what exactly was the problem?
3) Such warrants were able to be granted after the fact, so again the need for no warrant at all does indeed betray some nefarious use.
4) The FBI has admitted that the Patriot Act has already been misused against innocent citizens on numerous occasions. You don't think spying on everyone's phone and email conversations has been misused? If so, I'd like to remind you of a truism about what absolute power does, but I'm sure even you, for all of your feigned ignorance, know the rest.
Please don't simply take my word for it. Look into these facts yourself and enjoy all the robust discussion that took place here on these issues. You'll probably enjoy it since it is all (including my comments) heavily critical of Obama and the Dems.
Lastly, I will leave you with a quote, even though you don't seem to like these. They are ok to use, contrary to what you may have recently come to believe, when placed within the context of original synthesis of thought so as to add the weight of others to one's point. This is one that I wholeheartedly agree with and I hope that you might take it to heart:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Ben Franklin
P.S.: "I believe in most of the Bible, but I don't take it as literally as most Christians."
Actually, you would be more correct to say most fundamentalist or pentecostal Christians. Most Christians in general have a more metaphorical interpretation of the scripture.
It looks like the EFF is not actually selling these shirts, but rather giving them as a donation gift. If anybody has information to the contrary, I would be glad to hear it. I really want to get my hands on this shirt, but I've already given this year, and really can't afford to give again.
Good morning,
Tom @11: About my above posts, forgive me if those are considered Trolling. I'm still not exactly clear on what is or isn't considered a troll post. I don't believe I've ever intentionally made a troll post. I'll go study the moderation policy a bit more.
Tom @21: FoetusNail, Bull. Troll - someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response...
Instead of this:
This is kinda unpatriotic isn't it? These are the good guys were talking about. Why be so anti "The Man"? We do have more privacy than just about any other country don't we?
Try this:
I think this shirt is kinda unpatriotic. Why be so anti-government, they're trying to protect us, if something happens we might wish they had done more. Aren't they damned if they do and damned if they don't?
Then there is this, which ends with more smart ass italics and quotation marks:
Do you think all phone taps and all internet monitoring should be stopped completely? Or do you just want the government to get a warrant for each phone and e-mail tap? I won't repeat the normal opposing remarks that comes up on these privacy threads - I've never had a good response to those arguments. So I'll just ask, Do you believe the loss of some privacy is worth the extra security that is gained by the "illegal spying"?
I'm sorry, but coming from you these are not considered honest questions. You know all to well everyone here and the Congress considers what has and is still happening illegal; if it was legal, the other providers would not have been able to decline to cooperate and Congress would not have given immunity to those who did. Your use of smart ass italics and quotation marks, proves you are not being intellectually provocative, but antagonistic.
You also know damn well how everyone here feels about this subject, but just in case let me answer your questions honestly, and respond to the lone statement in between.
NO. ABSOLUTELY. Thanks for sparing us. HELL NO.
But then you respond to Takuan with this:
And Takuan, Dumb? You've lowered yourself to throwing personal insults? I really expect much better from you. You must be in the middle of a movie or something.
See, no one here thinks you are dumb, I personally think you are brainwashed like my Church of Christ in-laws, but not dumb. This then means you are either willfully ignorant as they are or trolling. But, in the off chance you have a learning disability I apologize for calling you a troll; if you do have a disability please let us know, so we can respond appropriately. I can't believe anyone here would be anything but understanding and helpful. This ain't utube
I was going to try to post something here that is original and insightful, but I think that Foetusnail pretty much summed up all that needs to be said in response to Tom's argument. I do, however, want that shirt; I just wish you could buy the shirt without having to actually donate $65 to the EEF (not that I have anything against them. I just want that shirt.)
FOETUSNAIL,
ur wrong. i are nOT a tROOL1
AND mama siad i'M not tarded, I'M am Special!
So, be kind - I'm special.
Thanks, -Tom
I agree with COOL, I would gladly buy one of these for $20. The EFF would make a ton of money for their cause. These are hard times, $65 is a bit elitist. Obama will take $20 and look how well that's working out. I think the EFF needs to change it's donation model.
Thanks to everyone who likes the shirt!
You are right, the shirts are not for sale in our shop. They are only available with a membership donation.
We realize that $65 is a pretty steep contribution to ask, especially in tough financial times. But civil liberties don't come cheap! We're not really in the business of "selling" shirts -- our job is to defend your digital rights. As an EFF employee, I can tell you we make every dollar count. Your donation will be well used. Thanks for your support!
H.
TOM HALE: In completely ignoring my honest, direct, and respectful response to your posts here in this thread, you have completely proven Foetusnail's point. You are not here to discuss, but inflame. Isn't that special?
Phikus, There are many things I could have said if I wanted to inflame the topic at hand. I trust the moderators to decide who is or who is not trolling. If you have a problem with what I've said, please feel free to report the post that offends you.
The reason I didn't respond to the points you laid out is because what you said doesn't change my opinion about the topic. Also, only my posts at 5, 9,and 13 were about privacy, the rest were off topic, as was many of the other posts.
tom, once again you make my poor lil brain spin like a cyclone. WTF? tell ya what, since u have nuttin to hide, why not send me all your emails, phone conversation transcripts, letters, and any other communications you have made for the last 8 years. i'll read them and pass 'em around to my friends. sound good?
No, you'll just give my e-mail address to spam companies and I usually only to my wife on the phone, you'd be totally bored.
There is nothing I could say about this topic that hasn't been said here a thousand times. And I admit, I shouldn't have used the word "unpatriotic," my apologies to anyone who may have been offended.
so, you DON'T want people listening in to your phone conversations? i thought you had nothing to hide. or maybe your personal privacy does mean something to you.
TOM HALE: If you pose a question, and someone has the decency to respectfully reply in answering your specific query, providing thorough exposition and / or citations, the least you can do is thank them for making the effort. If you wish for your views to be respected, you can reply thoughtfully with reasons as to what you disagree with and why. In your response, it is always best to stick with facts and not conjecture as well. No one will fault you for having an opposing opinion of you can support it in this way. If you cannot be bothered to provide reasoning behind your opinion and cite sources to back up your claims as needed, then you are doing nothing but being inflammatory.
The moderators have gotten onto you in the past for such spewing instead of participating in these discussions. If you are so quick to say the moderators should be the ones to determine what is troll-like, then why don't you let the moderators decide what is on or off topic as well? The reason I have gotten so frustrated with you in the past is that, after initially going out of my way to try to enlighten you with facts, you have just ignored it and continued to spout the same old shit.
It may surprise you to know that in any of these discussions, I retain an open mind and often have been enlightened myself to come to an entirely different opinion on an issue. If someone else's logic and facts are superior to mine, I am man enough to admit that and yield their point(s). The reason I am still bothering to respond to you is that I remain hopeful that you might be able to accept some of the answers to some of the questions you have posed, or at least discuss why you disagree intelligently. If you can provide adequate factual reasoning as to why you believe what you do, then I am open to the possibility that you might enlighten me as well. That's what having a real discussion is all about.
In the interest of having a clean slate in which to have said discussions going forward I offer you a sincere apology for anything I have said to you in these discussions previously which may have offended. Shall we start over and attempt to enlighten each other respectfully?
Phikus, I believe that many Americans dislike what the NSA, empowered by president Bush, has done concerning the possible invasion of their privacy. I personally do not have a problem with it, nor has anyone that I've spoken to about the subject (in person). Since you know so much about the subject, what do you predict the outcome will be with this suit? New Legal Challenge to Unconstitutional Domestic Spying?
I also want to ask (even though I'm really tired of the subject), why are you so eager to argue these points - especially with me? In all of this, I only asked why does the wire taps and Internet surveillance bother you? Every time you began to answer this question, your comment always ends in a quote. Answer in your own words for a change.
TOM HALE: Before I answer any more of your questions. Why don't you answer mine? If we cannot agree to have a discussion, what would be the point?
After a quick perusal, I can't find your question. Please repeat it concisely. Thanks
The last sentence at @55.
"Shall we start over and attempt to enlighten each other respectfully?"
Sure, sounds like a good idea to me. Though I doubt that I'll be able to find quotes or repeat committee findings as well as you can, but I'll do my best.
TOM HALE: That's ok. I am glad we have established a basis of agreement on which to hopefully build understanding. Your best is all one could ask for.
The quotes I use are generally when someone else has already said something I wholeheartedly agree with better than I might be able to phrase it, and as I sort of said earlier, you might be inclined listen to Ben Franklin where you (and by that I mean anyone in general) might not take it simply from a faceless person posting in a blog.
As to your questions:
"what do you predict the outcome will be with this suit?"
Realistically, I don't predict much will come of it, but I admire their valiant attempt. I believe in what they are trying to do, though the cause may seem hopeless at this point, after the passage of the FISA bill granting retroactive immunity. I think it is much too invasive a power for anyone to wield, and that it violates the 4th amendment, which states:
The founding fathers knew enough even in their day that a person's papers and effects, in essence their right to privacy should be respected and protected. The private details of anyone's life, if exposed, could be damaging. Do you post your social security number on the internet? No. Why? Because the unscrupulous could take advantage of you. Is there evidence that agents of our government are fallible and sometimes act unscrupulously? Plenty.
It seems to me, and to those of us who vehemently fight this indiscriminate eavesdropping on ordinary Americans, that A) This violates the 4th Amendment of the constitution, and B) It has never been proven that this is actually working toward its stated purpose (as I believe someone said above.)
"why are you so eager to argue these points - especially with me?"
I argue these points because I believe passionately in what America is supposed to stand for: The ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, however short we may have fallen in the past to actually practice those ideals. This may seem like silly rhetoric to some (I can already hear America The Beautiful starting to play behind my words in my head as I write this) but this is what I truly believe in. I look around me at this country and I see how some have perverted and abused these ideals for selfish gain and it makes me sick to my stomach. The only way I can find some solace is to speak out and try to be the change that I believe in; to try to make things right, or to more closely approach the ideals and the trust that our forefathers had in us. This is the legacy we have inherited. We can either ignore it, try to use it to take advantage of others (like stealing their resources in the name of exporting "Democracy") or try to truly embrace the underlying spirit and live it in your daily lives. For me the latter entails attempting to poke holes in the way some are duping others to support them in perpetrating option no. 2.
Though it can certainly be argued that the forefathers were aristocrats and slave-owners, and therefore my appraisal is too idealistic, but they knew enough to create a system of government that invests power in separate houses such that it would be difficult for tyranny to hold sway. They left a system that could breathe and grow to suit its constituents in an unforeseeable future. Thomas Jefferson wrote the kernel of the end of aristocracy and slavery into the Declaration of Independence for future generations to figure out how to implement. For all of its flaws, I still believe it is the best system of government for ensuring equality and justice that has been conceived of yet (I'm sure ZUZU will take me to task on this point, suggesting a radically new paradigm, as is his perogative.) It is a shame that we have taken several steps back in the past 8 years toward achieving that destiny.
Why with you? Because, contrary to many across the aisle, you are at least asking questions and trying to participate in discussions with those who would seem to believe very differently from yourself. This to me belies that you may not have already closed your mind to other possibilities than those being espoused in the right wing echo chamber ad nauseum. This is why I get frustrated when I see the eyes glazing over and other things getting in the way of thinking things through. I believe everyone has the potential to break out of the mold of outmoded ways of thinking. Others have opened my eyes, so I feel it is my duty to try to do the same to those who will listen and engage in true discourse with me, when I have something to offer.
Too often we find ourselves in a bubble of people who are like us, and who do not question what we have come to believe. This is very evident when I hear you say: "I personally do not have a problem with it, nor has anyone that I've spoken to about the subject (in person)". You see, EVERYONE I hang out with has a serious problem with unwarranted across-the-board eavesdropping on people's private electronic conversations. This medium allows us to converse with those who may come from a completely different sphere than our own, perchance to enlighten others and ourselves. I do not shy away from the challenge of discussing controversial issues with others who have radically different ideas.
Ultimately I believe that we are here to achieve growth and, yes, evolution, both individually and collectively. We cannot do this if we stay safe and unchallenged in our notions. My personal growth means little if I have not made at least an attempt to reach others with what I have gleamed, and as I have said, I cannot expand my horizons unless I am open to others input as well. I believe we may have more in common than the differences that are more easily perceived between us. We might never know this unless we take the chance to try to understand one another. Thank you for posing some good questions and for reading my long-winded answers.
If Tom Hale's a deliberate troll, he's one of the few I've seen who engages with others, answers questions, mixes appropriate questions and remarks in with the more dubious ones, and doesn't collapse into canned talking points.
Maybe he's discovering that he isn't really cut out to be a troll. It's a big world.
TOM HALE: I'll have to assume your lack of a reply means you agree with everything I posted in response to your questions. Glad to see we're making some progress.
If not, please tell me why. Thanks.
Phikus @63, you'd think poorly of someone who tried to pull that one on you.
Teresa @ 64 - Thank heavens (or equivalent) for your moderate moderation.
I fear that Tom Hale has been ridden out of town, and that now we're destined for the boring and unenlightening prospect of Phikus et al preaching to the converted.
Why should tolerance for the overtly alien (people with different skin colour and/or geographically diverse ethnicity) be the order of the day, whilst those who are politically/religiously different are castigated?
TERESA: I ask nothing of anyone I wouldn't expect from myself. When I ask someone questions specifically and they go to the trouble to answer them in a thread in great detail, the least I do is thank them for their insights, and / or I tell them what I agree with, what I disagree with and why. I didn't think that was too much to ask.
How was the wedding?
SAMMICH: I wasn't trying to run anyone off. I was trying to challenge Tom, as many here have, to improve his game to have enlightened discourse instead of hit and run. Why do you believe asking someone to support what they say is castigation?
Phikus - as a merely average debater, ~I~ find you intimidating, even though I share most of your views.
However, I never accused ~you~ of running Tom off, I simply regret the thinning of the field. (Actually, if he has gone, I'll miss the breadth of opinion that Tom added to the discussion).
I did witness, on Friday, a post of Tom's 'disappearing' from the 'black man dragged to death' thread, and I wonder whether at that point he gave up on us all.
For the record, from what I remember of his fleeting post, it was politically neutral, and called upon his fireman's knowledge of many road traffic incidents to question the official report of the incident, implying that the distance Brandon McLelland's body was reported to have been dragged did not in fact tally with a simple hit-and-run.
SAMMICH: I understand you now and I appreciate the compliment. I share your sentiment. Tom reminds me of folks in my own family who hold similar views. (My Dad's side of my family is conservative and patriarchal, while my Mom's side is liberal and matriarchal, which is I guess why my parents divorced when I was very young. Both are happily remarried. This might be irrelevant or TMI, or it might shed some light on where I'm coming from. You decide.)
As I said above, I appreciate the challenge of exchanging views with people of radically different perspectives, provided they are willing to engage in intelligent discourse. It certainly adds full dimension to any discussion to have opposing viewpoints in the mix, and I welcome it. But that said, I also believe we should all play by the same rules. I hope to hear back from Tom soon and I hope to not bore you too much with my "preaching to the converted" in the future. =D
Phikus - you don't bore me, and I share the "interesting" perspective endowed by mis-matched parents. However, I've had many ~many~ years of facing up to intense, well-read people like you, and you really shouldn't under-estimate the initial intimidatory force of your approach.
- I ~married~ one of you and am subsequently less surprised, but even so, I'm winded!
SAMMICH: I hope to marry someone someday who keeps me winded in a good way as well. =D