2 ms·

Look, it's the original commenter who used muddled (and misleading) language in the first place, not me. Whether their "analysis" or his "language" was more cr

Look, it's the original commenter who used muddled (and misleading) language in the first place, not me. Whether their "analysis" or his "language" was more critique-worth is beside the point.

wpietri 10y ago
I wasn't confused by it. The lawsuit was mentioned as "for document theft" in the article. I thought he was clearly adding his interpretation of motive. Maybe it's just you?
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  To me it reads as spin, not simply "interpretation."