RussiaGate

[laughing dog]

Thanks for the confirmation.

Your welcome. A lot of experience dealing with government corporations in China, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Russia and Hong Kong

There really is no need for you to continue to show your selective understanding of English - that fact is well-established.

 

[Copernicus]

Your welcome. A lot of experience dealing with government corporations in China, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Russia and Hong Kong

There really is no need for you to continue to show your selective understanding of English - that fact is well-established.

Well, I do speak Russian, but I actually read it far more fluently than I speak it. Natalia Veselnitskaya almost certainly speaks and reads English, but that doesn't mean that she is comfortable using the language.

As whichphilosophy says, she could find it useful to feign not understanding English, because that makes English speakers around her more lax about saying things that they think she won't get. More importantly, however, one should remember that she is a lawyer. Language is extremely important to lawyers, and they tend to be acutely aware of ambiguity, vagueness, and the propensity people have for misunderstanding. So she would naturally want a personal interpreter in a room with her, if she is there to discuss something important. That would allow her to listen to the English and then get a professional's take on the gist of what was being said, but in her native language. Also, with an interpreter, she would be able to express herself clearly in her native language and then monitor how it was translated to others. Too much is being read into the fact that she rarely speaks any words of English when talking about political matters.

I would not be the slightest bit surprised if she turned out to be a deep cover FSB officer with training in espionage. It is not useful for spies under cover to have a public record of employment by their agency. For example, Valerie Plame was a CIA officer, but that was only learned after the Bush administration outed her in revenge for her husband's failure to support their lies about the aluminum tubes sold to Iraq. Veselnitskaya's behavior is fully consistent with that of an FSB operative. She has been singularly focused on getting rid of the sanctions imposed on Russian oligarchs and their businesses.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There really is no need for you to continue to show your selective understanding of English - that fact is well-established.

Well, I do speak Russian, but I actually read it far more fluently than I speak it. Natalia Veselnitskaya almost certainly speaks and reads English, but that doesn't mean that she is comfortable using the language.

As whichphilosophy says, she could find it useful to feign not understanding English, because that makes English speakers around her more lax about saying things that they think she won't get. More importantly, however, one should remember that she is a lawyer. Language is extremely important to lawyers, and they tend to be acutely aware of ambiguity, vagueness, and the propensity people have for misunderstanding. So she would naturally want a personal interpreter in a room with her, if she is there to discuss something important. That would allow her to listen to the English and then get a professional's take on the gist of what was being said, but in her native language. Also, with an interpreter, she would be able to express herself clearly in her native language and then monitor how it was translated to others. Too much is being read into the fact that she rarely speaks any words of English when talking about political matters.

I would not be the slightest bit surprised if she turned out to be a deep cover FSB officer with training in espionage. It is not useful for spies under cover to have a public record of employment by their agency. For example, Valerie Plame was a CIA officer, but that was only learned after the Bush administration outed her in revenge for her husband's failure to support their lies about the aluminum tubes sold to Iraq. Veselnitskaya's behavior is fully consistent with that of an FSB operative. She has been singularly focused on getting rid of the sanctions imposed on Russian oligarchs and their businesses.

I have Russian ancestry on my mother’s side (She was Russian/Polish). I don’t speak the language though my brother does.

I believe it is likely she is an agent and with a set purpose. All Warfare is deception and diplomacy which is really war without bullets, deception will still play a role at times. Feigning non-comprehensions is a pretty old trick in diplomacy. When I worked for 10 years in a Chinese State run company selective understanding was not uncommon.

The Chinese will tell you that if you are wise, pretend to be foolish. This is true in other nationalities I have come across.

I would think she possibly has managed to gain useful information but it is not clear whether anything about Hilary was discussed. However, I would have thought that RTV would have aired it anyway.

The attraction was that the Russians had some exciting dirt on Hilary, so the Republican camp showed no hesitation of following it up.

This could well have been a deceptive ploy to probe how the Republicans would deal with Russia relating to trade and sanctions.

Despite sanctions, Russia and the USA have a lot of trade agreements in progress but it does want to gain or surpass the level it had before some sanctions were imposed by Obama.

 

[whichphilosophy]

A lot of things will come forward and have done. The chain I mentioned would be required. At the moment someone claiming to have information on corruption on Clinton in Russia but produced nothing is insufficient to show collusion and an effect.

It's like a fucking broken record...

It's a continuing media hyped theatre that if anything could harm the investigation.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Your welcome. A lot of experience dealing with government corporations in China, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Russia and Hong Kong

There really is no need for you to continue to show your selective understanding of English - that fact is well-established.

FIFY

There really is no need for you to continue to show your selective effective understanding of English - that fact is well-established.

 

[laughing dog]

There really is no need for you to continue to show your selective understanding of English - that fact is well-established.

FIFY

There really is no need for you to continue to show your selective effective understanding of English - that fact is well-established.

There is no dispute of which I am aware about my understanding of English. This thread - along with many others - are replete with your issues. For example, your persistent counterfactual and inane insistence that there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and foreign (i.e. Russian) influences.

 

[Warpoet]

whichphilosophy is remarkably calm and goes to great lengths to portray himself as rational and impartial, but he's obviously anything but impartial on this and a number of other issues.

Of course, that's nothing special around here. But what I don't get is why, after being a fixture on some of the other subforums for over a decade, he's suddenly got to respond to fucking everything in PD.

 

[whichphilosophy]

FIFY

There really is no need for you to continue to show your selective effective understanding of English - that fact is well-established.

There is no dispute of which I am aware about my understanding of English. This thread - along with many others - are replete with your issues. For example, your persistent counterfactual and inane insistence that there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and foreign (i.e. Russian) influences.

I said there is no conclusive evidence as given in the unclassified version of the intelligence report as I have stated more than once.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

High Confidence generally indicates that judgements are based on high-quality information from multiple sources. High quality confidence in a judgement does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgements may be wrong.

You can study the rest of the report in particular about Russian media. In the UK we call it's broadcasts exercising freedom of the press. So if freedom of the press is an attempt to influence public opinion than RTV is definitely guilty by way of broadcasting.

 

[whichphilosophy]

whichphilosophy is remarkably calm and goes to great lengths to portray himself as rational and impartial, but he's obviously anything but impartial on this and a number of other issues.

Of course, that's nothing special around here. But what I don't get is why, after being a fixture on some of the other subforums for over a decade, he's suddenly got to respond to fucking everything in PD.

Your comment is non-specific but I would be able to respond to a 'for instances'.

 

[braces_for_impact]

whichphilosophy is remarkably calm and goes to great lengths to portray himself as rational and impartial, but he's obviously anything but impartial on this and a number of other issues.

Of course, that's nothing special around here. But what I don't get is why, after being a fixture on some of the other subforums for over a decade, he's suddenly got to respond to fucking everything in PD.

Your comment is non-specific but I would be able to respond to a 'for instances'.

Maybe you're recently unemployed. Better yet, your programmer broadened your response algorithms.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Your comment is non-specific but I would be able to respond to a 'for instances'.

Maybe you're recently unemployed. Better yet, your programmer broadened your response algorithms.

The comment asks for specifics on a an unspecific claim. Something that J-D and Bio Being plus others used to do. In most cases they disagreed with me but were specific in what they said.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Maybe you're recently unemployed. Better yet, your programmer broadened your response algorithms.

The comment asks for specifics on a an unspecific claim. Something that J-D and Bio Being plus others used to do. In most cases they disagreed with me but were specific in what they said.

You honestly really do sound like a would be Turing test.

 

[Elixir]

You honestly really do sound like a would be Turing test.

It's a sad day when incoherent blather is sufficient to derail conversations that are headed into areas that are problematic for the troll-boss.
But it's really hard to moderate fairly, and still control for that kind of spam. In another forum where I moderated, it was a constant challenge - resisting the urge to ban someone just because they're repetitive, stupid, or simply posting so much irrelevance as to impede discussion. The mods here seem to do a good job, but that doesn't mean they can force a troll like this one to make sense.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The comment asks for specifics on a an unspecific claim. Something that J-D and Bio Being plus others used to do. In most cases they disagreed with me but were specific in what they said.

You honestly really do sound like a would be Turing test.

Are we allowed to make an robot account for "research purposes?" I'd love the opportunity to do that.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The comment asks for specifics on a an unspecific claim. Something that J-D and Bio Being plus others used to do. In most cases they disagreed with me but were specific in what they said.

You honestly really do sound like a would be Turing test.

I've done better; I did reply to my own posts on a couple of occasions having thought I found a smart person who agrees with me.

It was good fun.

- - - Updated - - -

You honestly really do sound like a would be Turing test.

Are we allowed to make an robot account for "research purposes?" I'd love the opportunity to do that.

I quote examples and give references. This is something that is lacking at times.

 

[Opoponax]

You honestly really do sound like a would be Turing test.

It's a sad day when incoherent blather is sufficient to derail conversations that are headed into areas that are problematic for the troll-boss.
But it's really hard to moderate fairly, and still control for that kind of spam. In another forum where I moderated, it was a constant challenge - resisting the urge to ban someone just because they're repetitive, stupid, or simply posting so much irrelevance as to impede discussion. The mods here seem to do a good job, but that doesn't mean they can force a troll like this one to make sense.

That's why I banished It to the ignore list. It's cut down on thread lengths by more than half.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You honestly really do sound like a would be Turing test.

It's a sad day when incoherent blather is sufficient to derail conversations that are headed into areas that are problematic for the troll-boss.
But it's really hard to moderate fairly, and still control for that kind of spam. In another forum where I moderated, it was a constant challenge - resisting the urge to ban someone just because they're repetitive, stupid, or simply posting so much irrelevance as to impede discussion. The mods here seem to do a good job, but that doesn't mean they can force a troll like this one to make sense.

If you read the references in law and dictionary definitions they make sense. I quote references where necessary.

I don't however follow party political viewpoints as diversity is much healthier.

I had no problem in China where I worked for 10 years in explaining things. (They did speak English by the way).

 

[Elixir]

If you read ...

Maybe you should go back to China. I hear they need more 'bots.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's a sad day when incoherent blather is sufficient to derail conversations that are headed into areas that are problematic for the troll-boss.
But it's really hard to moderate fairly, and still control for that kind of spam. In another forum where I moderated, it was a constant challenge - resisting the urge to ban someone just because they're repetitive, stupid, or simply posting so much irrelevance as to impede discussion. The mods here seem to do a good job, but that doesn't mean they can force a troll like this one to make sense.

That's why I banished It to the ignore list. It's cut down on thread lengths by more than half.

In other words you could not accept it when I mentioned that a case in US law can use a previous case, including an examination of circumstances to influence a current decision as in precedent.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If you read ...

Maybe you should go back to China. I hear they need more 'bots.

So does that mean you agree that the unclassified intelligence report is inconclusive.