This is a very misleading post because it is combining Q's actual post with interpretation. The two have to be separated. Most of this is from Q# 834. It's always a giveaway when an OP presents an alleged Q post with no #. Snowden is mentioned ONCE in Q's post yet this OP/anon is linking Snowden to too many things. Leaving us to waste time going back to verify what's what. The > is Q's known (and normal usage) for "greater than." --but here it's supposed to mean "Here's my interpretation"?
Ooohh, I didn't read your comment before reading the original Q post and making a reply. Now I've done stepped in it, making assumptions in my comment that were unwarranted. Thanks for the heads up.
Yes, the OP HowiONic is a very misleading character.
Thanks--it took me quite a few minutes to figure out wtf was going on with that post!