On Dec 2, 2007 11:17 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 9:06 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:57:27 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Maybe. On the other hand, if she misinterpreted the responses she got, for the her and the responder not to get together and agree to come clean and explain what happened is an even bigger mistake.
You are assuming two things: that Durova's interpretation of the responses is in line with yours; and that the responders have not already explained that Durova misinterpreted their comments.
It's kind of hard, without knowing who exactly was supposed to be one of the five, to know what responses Durova misinterpreted, but the perfectly innocent explanation - agreement that this was indeed a returning user - does appear to fit the facts without the need for additional speculation.
Guy (JzG)
Ockham's razor is unsatisfactory when there are witches to be burned.
Surely you mean Hanlon's razor. "Ockham's razor" doesn't apply - there's nothing complicated about malice.