On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 11:36:34 -0500, Anthony <wikimail(a)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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG