On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 11:36:34 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Actually, the simplest explanation, the one with the fewest entities, would be that she lied about the five people in the first place. Of course, that'd also be an assumption of bad faith, which apparently we're banned from expressing on this mailing list.
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?
Guy (JzG)