You should never have bothered in the first place then because you're clearly unable to argue in good faith.
Whether you disagree with me or not really doesn't matter. You aren't going to get anywhere with the "I know it and you know it" line. The DOE worded their response so they could have plausible deniability, making any potential legal battles over this boil down to a "proving intent" case, which would be very hard to do.
The only evidence we have available is the linked PDF document. Within it, the DOE makes it at least appear that it was willing to help within limits. Determining whether those limits were "realistic" or not is part of the problem. The second part is determining if the setting of "unrealistic" limits (should they be shown as such) was intentionally done to cause problems.
I disagree with you and I don't view this as a productive conversation.
Good bye and stay classy.
You should never have bothered in the first place then because you're clearly unable to argue in good faith.
Whether you disagree with me or not really doesn't matter. You aren't going to get anywhere with the "I know it and you know it" line. The DOE worded their response so they could have plausible deniability, making any potential legal battles over this boil down to a "proving intent" case, which would be very hard to do.
The only evidence we have available is the linked PDF document. Within it, the DOE makes it at least appear that it was willing to help within limits. Determining whether those limits were "realistic" or not is part of the problem. The second part is determining if the setting of "unrealistic" limits (should they be shown as such) was intentionally done to cause problems.
yawn
Didn't take long to reel you back in.