Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:10:25 -0600, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
I assume you're also one of the folks who
supports removing Angela
Beesley's birthdate from her article because although the birth register
for her hometown's hospital listed an Angela Beesley born on the same
date she claimed was her birthdate, there could have been _another_
Angela Beesley born on the same day and in the same hospital as her?
This level of synthesis is not a novel creative act, IMO.
No, that's a fact stated by the individual and corroborated from
public record, that's fine. How many Angela Beesleys would have been
born in that hospital on that day to parents with names matching those
of her mother and father? Not many.
Well, last I checked the information was still excluded from the article
on that basis, so I'm reassured to find at least one spot where we're on
the same side here. Makes it less likely that one of us has simply gone
loony.
This is different. It is a name, just a name, and a
place, and no
actual detail of the link between the two (could have been a prank by
the IT people), no additional data to link the two, it's not
corroborating any other source.
It's not even corroborated by the original source, making this an
increasingly hard-to-analyze situation. :)