In the sense that the only place the &quot;debate&quot; had left to go was &quot;worse&quot;.<p>It is not the way conference committees work that there&#x27;s a whole new open public process. By the time a bill has passed both houses of Congress, the incentive is declare victory and get the thing over with. The only reason there even <i>is</i> a conference committee is to get the House and Senate to agree on language.<p>I&#x27;ve explained repeatedly why the legal immunity language in CISA is not only reasonable, but in fact most of the impetus for the entire bill.<p>I&#x27;m a little annoyed at how you&#x27;re asking me to explain it again, because that once again puts me in the position of being perceived as a supporter of CISA, which I am not. I&#x27;m very tired of people --- like, respectfully, <i>you</i> --- equating &quot;effort taken to understand a complicated issue&quot; with &quot;partisan support for one side of that issue&quot;.<p>The &quot;tell&quot; that that&#x27;s what&#x27;s happening here is the language you chose to use: &quot;you&#x27;re not worried at all that...?&quot;. In sales, language like that is referred to as &quot;an assumptive close&quot;. It is literally a mind control technique. Here, you&#x27;re trying to deploy it on me to put me on the wrong side of an issue being discussed on HN.<p>PLEASE STOP DOING THAT.