[SeanLuke]

I don't understand that one. Does @frabyn not know that spurious means false?

[sievebrain]

It's a dumb article. Applebaum's statement says quite clearly "the claims are false" but this so-called analysis tries to argue it's the opposite.

[acqq]

> Does @frabyn not know that spurious means false?

Does 'SeanLuke not know the following definitions of spurious?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spurious

"of a deceitful nature or quality"

"not genuine, sincere, or authentic"

So Appelbaum can claim that he didn't exactly mean "false" (in a sense of "never happened") but "not sincere" (as in, "somebody instructed those people to tell that now, you know, the nasty governments that are after me") if presented with the proofs later.

In short, read carefully yourself, take the dictionary and consider what was actually written and what wasn't. My impression, Franklin Bynum correctly recognized one weasel word

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word