8 ms·

Mueller Accuses Russians of Aiding Trump, Assailing Clinton U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced an indictment of 13 Russian nationals and thr

Mueller Accuses Russians of Aiding Trump, Assailing Clinton U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced an indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities, accusing them of interfering in the 2016 presidential election and operating fake social media accounts. They used false personas and social media while also staging political rallies and communicating with “unwitting individuals” associated with the Trump campaign, it said. Which seems to be the entire story.

uptown 9y ago
"with a deliberately inflammatory and made up title." The Bloomberg.com story title has changed at least three times since the story's initial publication. If you're going to accuse people of things, please make sure your facts are correct.
- Tech-Noir 9y ago
  How do I check Bloomberg's title change history? Are you saying within the 5 minutes you posted they changed it? > please make sure your facts are correct. Likewise. Edit: removed the word "own" from "please make sure your own facts are correct."
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - nthompson 9y ago
    A-B testing of article titles should be regarded as a breach of journalist ethics.
    - codezero 9y ago
      Why? I’m not an expert on ethical standards so I’m curious what a variable title would mean.
  - uptown 9y ago
    "> please make sure your own facts are correct" You misquoted me.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - Tech-Noir 9y ago
      My mistake. The "quote" was originally a reponse from me, based on what you said. Corrected.
      - uptown 9y ago
        So let's review. First you accused me of posting a "deliberately inflammatory and made up title". Then you misquoted me. When I pointed out that you misquoted me, you replied with the following: "I copied and pasted exactly what you wrote, liar." Then you deleted that reply, and posted this: "Actually you're correct on this. The "quote" was originally a response from me, based on what you said." Then you edited that reply and it now reads: "My mistake. The "quote" was originally a reponse from me, based on what you said. Corrected." There may have been other edits that I missed. But I guess we're back to the concept expressed in my original response. Content published online is subject to change over time without an entirely clear record of what gets changed, and when it's changed.
        Tech-Noir 9y ago
        So let's review: You're dredging up and arguing about something I deleted within seconds - to even see it, let alone be able to quote it, you must either have access to edits or being reloading your comments page every second and copying the replies before they changed. (Something you didn't bother to do with this story.) Did you notice that when your false and inflammatory title was corrected, I edited my post to remove the complaint about it? Perhaps after ten years here you still have something to learn. > First you accused me of posting a "deliberately inflammatory and made up title". Because you did. And I wasn't the only person to remark about it. > Then you misquoted me. No, I made a reply in kind - posting back at you what you threw at me - and then edited my post to turn it from less argumentative to simply a quote and forgot to remove three letters from it. Big deal. When you complained about being "misquoted" (which you weren't, there was simply an extra word which did not change the meaning of what you said), the "misquoting" was so difficult to see I at first claimed you were lying, since it looked exactly what you had posted. I then noticed there was, accidentally, a single three letter word difference, and deleted my comment, admitted my mistake and removed the three letters which did not change the meaning of what you said anyway. Instead of accepting that you drag up a lot of DELETED material purely in order to continuing arguing about it. Perhaps you can explain why you are doing that? > There may have been other edits that I missed. Missed? You're quoting multiple edits which changed within seconds. There's no way you can have naturally got every edit that you quoted without reloading the page literally every second (which makes no sense) and copying the edits into a notepad, or simply having admin access to the edits, either directly or indirectly, which may also explain how your post got to the front page within 5 minutes with a mere 5 votes. > Content published online is subject to change over time without an entirely clear record of what gets changed, and when it's changed. Then you should probably do your best to make sure when posting inflammatory titles that they are accurate.
mrkstu 9y ago
I think the most interesting phrase is "unwitting individuals"- this implies that there was no conspiracy on the Trump side of the equation.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  The indictment isn't the final wrapping of the investigation, just another stage. The Deputy AG when questioned about the clause you're referring to would only state that this indictment makes no accusations of the sort and refused to answer questions outside of the scope of this particular indictment. As you know, other indictments have preceded this one. Others may be to follow. I wouldn't be quick to sum it all up based on two such words. Muller's previous work on large cases has gone on in stages, increasing in severity of charges and prominence of subject.
- cryptoz 9y ago
  > this implies that there was no conspiracy on the Trump side of the equation. No it doesn't. Saying that on a certain day there weren't any clouds in the sky does not mean that for a whole month it didn't rain. There is absolutely no implication or suggestion of any kind in that statement that indicates no conspiracy on the Trump side.
  - mrkstu 9y ago
    By implication it is positive for the Trump campaign and means there was no conspiracy with these actors- if there was a broad conspiracy there would have been no need for these Russians to hide their identities from their Trump counterparts. This means that any conspiracy must be limited in scope rather than broad (i.e. Mantifort)- it doesn't completely clear Trump (and proving a negative like that is of course impossible anyway) but it is unambiguously more positive for him.

uptown 9y ago

"with a deliberately inflammatory and made up title." The Bloomberg.com story title has changed at least three times since the story's initial publication. If you're going to accuse people of things, please make sure your facts are correct.

Tech-Noir 9y ago
How do I check Bloomberg's title change history? Are you saying within the 5 minutes you posted they changed it? > please make sure your facts are correct. Likewise. Edit: removed the word "own" from "please make sure your own facts are correct."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nthompson 9y ago
  A-B testing of article titles should be regarded as a breach of journalist ethics.
  - codezero 9y ago
    Why? I’m not an expert on ethical standards so I’m curious what a variable title would mean.
- uptown 9y ago
  "> please make sure your own facts are correct" You misquoted me.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Tech-Noir 9y ago
    My mistake. The "quote" was originally a reponse from me, based on what you said. Corrected.
    - uptown 9y ago
      So let's review. First you accused me of posting a "deliberately inflammatory and made up title". Then you misquoted me. When I pointed out that you misquoted me, you replied with the following: "I copied and pasted exactly what you wrote, liar." Then you deleted that reply, and posted this: "Actually you're correct on this. The "quote" was originally a response from me, based on what you said." Then you edited that reply and it now reads: "My mistake. The "quote" was originally a reponse from me, based on what you said. Corrected." There may have been other edits that I missed. But I guess we're back to the concept expressed in my original response. Content published online is subject to change over time without an entirely clear record of what gets changed, and when it's changed.
      - Tech-Noir 9y ago
        So let's review: You're dredging up and arguing about something I deleted within seconds - to even see it, let alone be able to quote it, you must either have access to edits or being reloading your comments page every second and copying the replies before they changed. (Something you didn't bother to do with this story.) Did you notice that when your false and inflammatory title was corrected, I edited my post to remove the complaint about it? Perhaps after ten years here you still have something to learn. > First you accused me of posting a "deliberately inflammatory and made up title". Because you did. And I wasn't the only person to remark about it. > Then you misquoted me. No, I made a reply in kind - posting back at you what you threw at me - and then edited my post to turn it from less argumentative to simply a quote and forgot to remove three letters from it. Big deal. When you complained about being "misquoted" (which you weren't, there was simply an extra word which did not change the meaning of what you said), the "misquoting" was so difficult to see I at first claimed you were lying, since it looked exactly what you had posted. I then noticed there was, accidentally, a single three letter word difference, and deleted my comment, admitted my mistake and removed the three letters which did not change the meaning of what you said anyway. Instead of accepting that you drag up a lot of DELETED material purely in order to continuing arguing about it. Perhaps you can explain why you are doing that? > There may have been other edits that I missed. Missed? You're quoting multiple edits which changed within seconds. There's no way you can have naturally got every edit that you quoted without reloading the page literally every second (which makes no sense) and copying the edits into a notepad, or simply having admin access to the edits, either directly or indirectly, which may also explain how your post got to the front page within 5 minutes with a mere 5 votes. > Content published online is subject to change over time without an entirely clear record of what gets changed, and when it's changed. Then you should probably do your best to make sure when posting inflammatory titles that they are accurate.

mrkstu 9y ago

I think the most interesting phrase is "unwitting individuals"- this implies that there was no conspiracy on the Trump side of the equation.

52-6F-62 9y ago
The indictment isn't the final wrapping of the investigation, just another stage. The Deputy AG when questioned about the clause you're referring to would only state that this indictment makes no accusations of the sort and refused to answer questions outside of the scope of this particular indictment. As you know, other indictments have preceded this one. Others may be to follow. I wouldn't be quick to sum it all up based on two such words. Muller's previous work on large cases has gone on in stages, increasing in severity of charges and prominence of subject.
cryptoz 9y ago
> this implies that there was no conspiracy on the Trump side of the equation. No it doesn't. Saying that on a certain day there weren't any clouds in the sky does not mean that for a whole month it didn't rain. There is absolutely no implication or suggestion of any kind in that statement that indicates no conspiracy on the Trump side.
- mrkstu 9y ago
  By implication it is positive for the Trump campaign and means there was no conspiracy with these actors- if there was a broad conspiracy there would have been no need for these Russians to hide their identities from their Trump counterparts. This means that any conspiracy must be limited in scope rather than broad (i.e. Mantifort)- it doesn't completely clear Trump (and proving a negative like that is of course impossible anyway) but it is unambiguously more positive for him.