Basically everything except the video has been correct so far. Go look.
-
I didn’t specify which parts had been confirmed, only that some of it had. You can rationalize all you want so long as you’re aware that you are, indeed, rationalizing.
I'm asking you for a single one from that article. Again, what it shows is that the CENTRAL ALLEGATIONS against Page are, if he is to be believed, FALSE. Which is the opposite of truth, in case you're catching up.
-
-
Ok. Here you go. This goes more in depth in terms of items mentioned in the dossier that later proved true, notably Russia’s hacking efforts to influence the election.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/09/a_lot_of_the_steele_dossier_has_since_been_corroborated.html …
-
And here's the very lengthy piece where I point out that ESPECIALLY wrt hacking, that piece is a shitshow and ALSO violates key rules about evidence wrt intel analysis. https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/09/06/john-siphers-garbage-post-arguing-the-steele-dossier-isnt-garbage/ …
-
That piece is ESPECIALLY nice in the way it says, "this 11/2016 article (which wasn't as good as a 2015 article on the topic) proves that a 12/2016 dossier report is true. Chronology doesn't work that way.
-
Genetic fallacy.
-
So it is your argument that an report in December 2016 can be proven by a report that was public in November 2016?
-
No, my argument in this case is that you have not refuted the substance of the article. As far as I can tell, your comment regarding chronology is completely fabricated.
-
I'm sorry, you're going to have to TRY REALLY HARD TO READ. Sipher is saying that a report issued in December (he doesn't give the date bc he's hiding how late it was) is proven by this: "in November, researchers at Oxford University published a report." That's impossible.
-
And it ignores that 1) the alleged bot factory HAS NOT been proven (in fact it's owner is suing on 2 continents) and 2) FAR BETTER research on bots was available in 2015.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Your logical fallacy is that because someone may be telling the truth about SOMEthing, it means that they are therefore telling the truth about everything. It’s not all or nothing.
-
Huh? I've asked you for one set of facts that actually matches public testimony. You pointed to a very bad article that said Not A = A. Which obviously is a logical shitshow. Or do you actually believe that Not A = A? Is that how you learned logic?
-
I mean, I'm sorry the reporting on the dossier is so uniformly bad. But you should have the wherewithal to notice when a journalist says "This Not A thing proves the A allegation in the dossier" even if they can't.
-
You’re trying to re-dictate the narrative to fit your desired conclusion which is labeling people “Alex Jones”. Meanwhile, you are willfully ignoring anything that conflicts with your narrative. Ironically, this makes you look like Alex Jones.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.