1) as I understand this, the the judge's decision is not that these are threats, just that you can have a subpoena. As popehat noted, that's different: everyone acknowledges that there is some legal authority for a subpoena. It's just that it's been said to be an abuse of it because these are not true threats.
2) The "reasonable person" standard is not "what Aqueous, HN commentator, thinks a reasonable person would view as a threat", but a legal construct. While reasonable person is an ordinary language term, as these terms are used in courts, they establish precedents and criteria that are used. Ken White mentioned some criteria, tptacek mentioned some others. I don't see you offering any guidance beyond "seems reasonable to me".
3) As for the appeal to authority, you don't understand what that means. If you were citing actual evidence of anything, it might be appropriate to argue that dismissing it was an appeal to authority. But both you and White are basically saying "trust me, I know how the courts treat threats". In that context, the fact that he is a federal prosecutor, and therefore intimately acquainted with what courts do is quite relevant, and the fact that it really sounds like you're just making this up as you go along is also quite relevant. As I said, I do acknowledge that you could be right. It's just that you have absolutely failed to give anyone a reason to think so.
If you assert first order logic is complete, and I say it's not, then it's a good question which of us studied math. If we both try to give proofs/counterexamples, then it's no longer relevant. But this case is much more like the first than the second.
2) The "reasonable person" standard is not "what Aqueous, HN commentator, thinks a reasonable person would view as a threat", but a legal construct. While reasonable person is an ordinary language term, as these terms are used in courts, they establish precedents and criteria that are used. Ken White mentioned some criteria, tptacek mentioned some others. I don't see you offering any guidance beyond "seems reasonable to me".
3) As for the appeal to authority, you don't understand what that means. If you were citing actual evidence of anything, it might be appropriate to argue that dismissing it was an appeal to authority. But both you and White are basically saying "trust me, I know how the courts treat threats". In that context, the fact that he is a federal prosecutor, and therefore intimately acquainted with what courts do is quite relevant, and the fact that it really sounds like you're just making this up as you go along is also quite relevant. As I said, I do acknowledge that you could be right. It's just that you have absolutely failed to give anyone a reason to think so.
If you assert first order logic is complete, and I say it's not, then it's a good question which of us studied math. If we both try to give proofs/counterexamples, then it's no longer relevant. But this case is much more like the first than the second.