[doktrin]

> if that's what you really think, then you don't get to assume that the DNC was hacked "by the Russians". Agreed?

Are you saying there's some letter written in broken english that's being used as proof of Russian involvement in the DNC hacks?

[jessaustin]

Now that we know the "tools used" "proof" is worthless because CIA uses those tools too, is there anything else?

[doktrin]

What does that have to do with my point about inferring identity based on textual clues in this blog post?

[jessaustin]

'doktrin perhaps you have confused this subthread with a different one; it would be understandable since you've seen fit to post on this page sixteen times already. (Bonus points: you've used the phrase "paid shills" twice!) Unless you're willing to admit now that you are the DNC staffer who leaked all their dirty laundry to Wikileaks, you've got to admit that this tawdry hermeneutical argument no longer suffices to prove The Russians Did It.

[doktrin]

> perhaps you have confused this subthread with a different one

No, but since you're obviously confused let me explain which thread we're in. The common topic, stretching back to the top comment, is armchair linguistic "analysis" :

>> (throwaway71958) Well, there's no Russian first-language bias in that text for sure. Another argument in favor of the opinion that this was written by an American: the author seems to be well versed in the memes of the US political discourse. Someone from outside the US is unlikely to even know or care about Trump's "movement", or who "Bannon" is, or "drain the swamp", or "white privilege" etc. They're also unlikely to abbreviate "New York Times" as "NYT". The telltale signs are all over the text.

>> (atemerev) Yes, exactly. While those are still somewhat plausible (I am Russian, and I might have occasionally used all of these ironically), it was "POTUS" and "SCOTUS" that made me 99% sure that this text was written by an American (or at least a US insider). You guys love your acronyms.

>> (doktrin) I honestly don't know why you guys are trying to divine identity based on textual clues like this. It's safe to assume every stylistic and linguistic choice is deliberate.

>> (throwaway71958) Sure. But if that's what you really think, then you don't get to assume that the DNC was hacked "by the Russians". Agreed?

>> (doktrin) Are you saying there's some letter written in broken english that's being used as proof of Russian involvement in the DNC hacks?

>> (jessaustin) Now that we know the "tools used" "proof" is worthless because CIA uses those tools too, is there anything else?

>> (doktrin) What does that have to do with my point about inferring identity based on textual clues in this blog post?

Which brings us back to the present - as you can see, it's you and throwaway who are trying to derail the thread at the last minute with red herrings about the DNC hacks. I'm not sure why you feel like it's super relevant here.

> Bonus points: you've used the phrase "paid shills" twice!

Again : you're confused. I used the phrase once (the other "use" you're thinking of was obviously a citation)

[ooqr]

Don't feed the trolls, man