On Dec 2, 2007 12:19 PM, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc(a)ktchan.info> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 16:43 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG
wrote:
Simpler still: she was as wrong in her
interpretation of responses
as she was wrong about !!. This requires no assumption of bad
faith, no guesswork, no additional hypotheses.
That Durova's judgment was badly out is not in dispute; why look for
any other explanation?
You can't just brush aside people desire to check there isn't another,
the actually correct, explanation as sometimes god forbid what we're
told isn't necessarily the truth.
Convince people why the explanation given is the true one, and that that
one isn't trying to hide something. Just brushing away queries is only
going to lead to suspicions that something is being hidden and that they
should try even harder to look for a different explanation.
KTC
The way these inquiries are traditionally done is that one submerges
the person being queried under water for a period of time; if they do
not drown, then they are a witch and are burned at the stake, whereas
if they do drown, it proves their innocence, and their souls go
straight up to heaven. Win-win!