Since you’re going to childishly talk about me and infer something that is entirely false, I’m going to step in here.
First, you claim it’s “a convenient shorthand”, except “middleman” is far shorter than “man-in-the-middle”. So that argument is entirely false.
Next, “nothing that I wrote misrepresents the situation”? You literally linked the Wikipedia article for “Man in the middle attack”, but conveniently left out the word “attack” both when referring to it and in the link itself which redirected to the actual Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack.
You are clearly intentionally misrepresenting the subject in order to frame things to suit your narrative. That’s not just a claim out of nowhere, I provided evidence to support this.
And get out of here with your pathetic “like most of my colleagues” pretentious attitude.
Since you’re going to childishly talk about me and infer something that is entirely false, I’m going to step in here.
First, you claim it’s “a convenient shorthand”, except “middleman” is far shorter than “man-in-the-middle”. So that argument is entirely false.
Next, “nothing that I wrote misrepresents the situation”? You literally linked the Wikipedia article for “Man in the middle attack”, but conveniently left out the word “attack” both when referring to it and in the link itself which redirected to the actual Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack.
You are clearly intentionally misrepresenting the subject in order to frame things to suit your narrative. That’s not just a claim out of nowhere, I provided evidence to support this.
And get out of here with your pathetic “like most of my colleagues” pretentious attitude.