But his claim, that it is disputable, is quite weak and therefore trvially proves itself. By disputing it, he proves it can be disputed. You are seeking to resolve said dispute, which is also important but not exactly the same thing.
For example, consider the phrase, "It is what it is": http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/it_is_what_it_is
Logically, it's an obvious tautology. Idiomatically, it means, "This circumstance is simply a fact and must be accepted or dealt with as it exists."
So lightyrs was A) trying to say something substantive about the EFF, or B) making an incredibly obvious statement about the literal meaning "indisputable", which etfb clearly was using hyperbolically for effect. I think the charitable thing to do is to assume A, which is what siddboots did.
Given your dichotomy, my statement would fall under the banner of B, however, what I am really driving at is the fallacy of the inherent trust that we tend to place in institutions and political actors that are supposedly 'on our side'. This is a vector that can be exploited and as such, must be minimized at every opportunity. I am playing the role of skeptic here to contribute to a mainline of skepticism that may serve to ultimately enhance the authority that the EFF asserts when they claim to 'speak for us'.
You say this is 'obvious', however, I would argue that it can never be obvious enough and that it is not actually as obvious as you might think. I am very often bewildered by the trust people are willing to place in institutions. I am disturbed by this trust — by this weakening of the foundations of authority. My comment came from these emotional and intellectual underpinnings.
It should be trivial to prove if it is true (though the claim does not prove itself), which is why I feel comfortable in asking to see that proof. It isn't asking much.
If I dispute that the EFF are "the good guys", then the EFF are not indisputably "the good guys".
Or, more formally it is:
p →q
p is "I dispute that the EFF are good guys" q is "the EFF are not indisputably the good guys"
A trivial proof can only be so if can be shown that q is true. As p is also true (he disputes this) then q is also true. Ergo, this is proven true, thus is a trivial proof.
See, he doesn't actually say that; he has not actually said that he himself has legitimate questions about the EFF, nor has he identified anybody that does. He implies that he does, but has avoided giving any sort of clarification. If you claim that they are not the good guys, then it is indeed proven that they are not indisputably the good guys. Merely claiming that there are other who dispute them proves nothing of the sort though, unless you can prove that those others exist (Just a name or contact information would do, I could go ask them to confirm their position myself).
I could say "It is disputed that sugar is sweet", but that statement would not prove itself (maybe I do not dispute that sugar is sweet, and am unable to find any examples of people that do). Now, if I said "It is disputed that sugar is sweet. I dispute it.", that proves itself. If I say "It is disputed that sugar is sweet. Vladimir Putin disputes it", then (assuming Vladimir Putin confirms this) it is again proven.
We need to know who actually disputes/questions this before we can accept it as disputed/questioned. This is why my question to him was "Who's asking those questions?" I expect his answer, were he kind enough to give one, would be "Me.", at which point his statement would be proven and the discussion could continue in a more productive manner.