View Single Post
  #62  
Old 10 September 2018, 01:07 AM
Steve Steve is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2002
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psihala View Post
I'm curious why the paper has to be concerned about publishing something that some "amomonous" (Trump's word) person wanted published--only to have someone else analyze it.

The paper has so far kept their promise to keep the person's identity secret. They have no say if some independent third party attempts to identify the writer(s) by their own means. Even if that third party has reasonable confidence in their analysis, as long as the paper doesn't confirm it, they're doing all they're obligated to do.

Isn't the onus of responsibility for taking a chance others will try to identify them on the author(s)? They can't have been so clueless that writing such a piece wouldn't have raised eyebrows.

~Psihala
Ok, does the paper want future anonymous sources? They're less likely to get them if everyone know who wrote this one.

Did this paper make an agreement beforehand with this source to protect them but disguising the writing? Obviously I don't know, and maybe not. But maybe they did in which case they'd uphold those agreements. But even if you find this point too hypothetical, the first seems obvious.

Anyway, maybe the source did take the onus and disguise their own writing style by having his or her spouse rewrite the piece. That's possible as well, and is just as relevant to the points some of us are making about the legitimacy of lots of these linguistic tests.
Reply With Quote