Text 23497, 58 rader
Skriven 2015-04-15 11:08:24 av Joe Delahaye (49719.fidonews)
  Kommentar till text 23474 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Fidonews Vol 32 no 15 Page: 4
=====================================
  Re: Fidonews Vol 32 no 15 Page: 4
  By: Michiel van der Vlist to Joe Delahaye on Wed Apr 15 2015 10:15:34

 MV>>> It was Janis who spread the false infornmation. So it was her error
 MV>>> or her error too. She may have been misinformed, but then her error
 MV>>> was accepting information as fact just because someone says so.

First you have to have a reason to suspect that the information is wrong. 
There was no reason to think that



 MV> Or so she says. But why should we believe her? Anyway, the "he will be
 MV> back" was her own addition. Or at least according to her own statement.
 MV> Which you may or not believe to be fact.


So given the information she had, would you not have come to the same
conclusion?  I certainly would have.


 JD>> It is not considered mis-information if you do not know it is wrong.

 MV> The easy way out...

No, the factual way


 JD>> As well, who knows if it was wrong,  The person talking to her may
 JD>> have been mistaken in his timeline. but that does not make it false
 JD>> info.

 MV> Then we have a serious cultural difference. Again. Here ignorance is no
 MV> excuse. False info is false info. If you buy a stolen car from someone and
 MV> sell it again, it is fencing. Period. You don't get away with claiming the
 MV> person who sold you the car told you it was not stolen.


Why is that?  I the  timeline is off by a week or so, and is mis remembered
does it make the information false?  The only thing that would be wrong, would
be the timeline.  As for the stolen car, or anytyhing else for that matter,
yes, you would be out of luck.  It is not however considered fencing, unless
you knew it was stolen in the first place.


 JD>> We seem to think differently here about such things

 MV> If what you say is true - and I am not prepaired to take your word for it
 MV> - it means that we can never trust info coming your side because if it
 MV> turns out to be wrong, you guys can always get away with claiming that you
 MV> were misinformed.

Notice I said 'seem to think differently'  It does not mean at all what you
write however.  You have this affinity of always wanting concrete proof before
you believe anything.  That is not always possible.  I think that is just in
YOUR nature though, because of your background.
--- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
 * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)