On 27/11/2007, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007 5:16 PM, geni
<geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 27/11/2007, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Oh, gosh, lesse; is it possible, just possible,
that any of the people
who have commented might have said something in error? That they might
believe (or have believed) something to be true, but were wrong? GASP!
That is up to them to say. Not you to say on their behalf.
Nonsense; when someone says "either A is lying or B is lying" it is
*incumbent* on others to say "or perhaps one or the other is
mistaken."
When someone says that A and B's statements contradict each other.
That is a matter for A and B to provide an explanation for. Further
speculation is pointless.
Nonsense again; not reading an e-mail is not a
"moral failing" in any
meaningful sense of the term.
Yeah the Enron non executive directors tried that argument. Legally
correct but as I said it depends on your moral system.
On the other hand, insisting that we
must assume people are lying, rather than perhaps being in error or
mistaken, could well be seen as a moral failure.
We don't need any more hypotheticals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic…
Oh, so you think the AN/I process is broken, and that's what RR was
referring to?
Read the comment. Consider the timing. It suggests a process no? Since
we are getting into a who knew what when game it also places a hard
limit on how far people can claim plausible deniability.
--
geni