I don’t find Ven Thanissaro’s argument all that convincing. It is not totally wrong, but it is hardly totally correct. Anatta can certainly be translated as “no self.” There is nothing in the structure and grammar of the word that says otherwise. One might appeal to context, but that is not always clear cut either.
“sabbe dhamma anatta” This is to say within the full range of whatever can be experienced by a worldling or by a Buddha there is no self to be found. Anatta can tell us that this or that is not a self, but it also tells us that there is no self in terms of an unchanging, self identical agent to be found anywhere in any way.
Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. - SN III 46.
This is simply saying that there is no self that is not a conditioned process.
Not self or no self, it depends upon context.