Okay, but now that thread is suddenly about “did Clinton kill people”.
But I think that’s an interesting question. It’s not as though the truth of facts matters anymore.
I almost sent PMs to Hurricane, Starving and the usual gang to ask them to offer their opinions on the murders; I think they might take the Clintons’ side, but can we be sure? Instead, the vote by right-wingers in that thread right now is unanimous IIUC: The Clintons are Murderers.
Just plain dumb as shit.
But then that’s you choosing to say the facts don’t matter. You’re helping them spread their propaganda.
The answer is that he is wrong. Say that and we’re done. When you guys perpetuate this shit, and know you are doing that, I sometimes question if you care about fighting ignorance and preventing these assholes from spreading their alternative facts. Are you on their side?
With an ordinary troll, that can work. But when the goal is to control the conversation and get the topic away from where they are wrong, this is a bad idea. The troll is using your desire to correct him to steer the conversation.
It’s why I’ve lately been ignoring hijacks and trying to redirect back to the original topic. I’ve started to notice when even seasoned Dopers use this tactic. It’s everywhere.
Curse you, I came here just to post that, and you beat me to it! 
BTW, I suggested in the Omnibus thread that his grammatical quirks were perhaps due to his first language being Russian (and his location being The Kremlin, Moscow). I’m now persuaded that this is giving him far too much credit. After seeing more of his efforts, I think he writes that way because he’s a dumb-as-a-brick fucking moron.
Anybody smart enough to listen to ol’ septimus is smart enough to know I was being bitterly sarcastic.
And kudos to Bone for shutting that shit down. Sheesh.
Good call. Seriously, he’s pretty blatant about it.
Deeply philosophical question: if someone is so incredibly fucking stupid that their sincere posts are so fucking imbecilic that they sound like trolling, are they really trolls, ontologically speaking? Here I think we face not just a semantic but an epistemological conundrum in distinguishing the troll from the common moron. There are no easy answers.
Ban 'em all, let [del]God[/del] Cecil sort them out.
Per the registration agreement, trolling and sincerity are not mutually exclusive here.
I was also admonished — I guess for over-using the word ‘completely.’ I am not completely delighted about that.
Man, we are dicks to conservatives here.
Anyway, I doubt Silver Lining is a troll. I’m guessing he is an older white gentleman. The way he talks reminds me of a lot of the older white conservatives I know.
He may regurgitate genuine Russian troll talking points, but that doesn’t make him a troll himself.
Gentleman?
Seriously? We do not see eye to eye on what constitutes a gentleman, I’m certain.
“A gentleman never insults anyone unintentionally.”
- Oscar Wilde (attrib.)
Maybe.
In this case, however, we are dicks to dicks.
In other words, he’s a valid representative for about half of the citizens of the United States.