On 10/08/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/8/10, Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich@gmail.com:
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"?
---