On 10/08/07, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich
<yury.tarasievich(a)gmail.com>om>:
I perceive a contradiction here in an additional
notion of some
ill-defined "truthfullness" threshold, which may be freely abused --
and is abused.
I don't see how this would be the case. If something is verifiable, it
seems to me it cannot be judged untrue.
...and if it's respectable (e.g., academic) enough, it ought to be
included, balanced language and all. Which is precisely my point from
the beginning. How is such policy enforcable?
Say, some perceive this 'something' as a capital breach in their
faith? Where to turn, then? Or just let those people "have it their
way"?
---