On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 08:09:34PM +0100, Ian Woollard wrote:
On 31/03/2008, Carl Beckhorn
<cbeckhorn(a)fastmail.fm> wrote:
How exactly is that website supposed to be more
reliable than
anybody else's firsthand observations?
In this case, it could be passable, but still legally closed (it's on
private land apparently). He hasn't shown that it's legally open, or
even necessarily that it's safe to cross. So his OR is that it's open.
I should be more clear about what I'm saying: that website shouldn't be
considered a reliable source in the first place. Imagine the reaction if
any other serious document - a legal brief, an academic paper, etc. -
cited the text on that website to prove the bridge is closed. There's
no reason we should be citing it either.
- Carl