On Jan 27, 9:52 pm, Tom Sherman <
[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> That has nothing to do with it. I read Mr. Jute's post before Mr.
> Fogel's reply, and did not see anything that pointed to it being an
> obvious falsehood.
Well, that's a judgment call. There were several people who judged
they saw several clues both in his tale, and elsewhere in his
postings.
> Furthermore, it appears that Mr. Fogel posted an insinuation, while
> avoiding a direct accusation, which is his style.
Let's calm down and examine the issue of insinuations. First, you
know and I know that there are people who have posted lies on Usenet,
right?
If a person strongly suspects a person's account isn't correct or
factual, how should it be handled?
Should we immediately yell "Liar!!"? I agree, we should not.
Should we believe absolutely everything that's posted? Not a good
strategy.
Should we always remain silent, and hope someone else does the heavy
lifting? Well, one could, but it's not contributing much to the
online community.
How about stating "I'd love to believe that, but it seems unlikely,"
or words to that effect, and perhaps giving an explanation of the
reasons for doubt?
That seems reasonable. It doesn't say "liar," because it allows for
other explanations, such as remembering wrongly, technical recording
errors, creative fiction, etc. It's a polite way of expressing doubt
- something we must do from time to time, if we're not to be paralyzed
by political correctness.
And AFAICT, it's what Carl did.
What would you do?
(And as an aside - do you _really_ prefer Jute's style to Carl's
style??)
- Frank Krygowski