3 ms·

The information presented is limited, correct. It is, however, more than enough for any reasonable person to conclude 1) it is about Bernie 2) WVA refers to Wes

The information presented is limited, correct. It is, however, more than enough for any reasonable person to conclude 1) it is about Bernie 2) WVA refers to West Virginia 3) It's talking about state primaries 4) they hope to harm his chances. Everything about Bayes theorem etc and probabilities of various other explanations are disingenuous. Consider what Brad Marshall said when asked for comment: > “I do not recall this. I can say it would not have been Sanders. It would probably be about a surrogate.” (emphasis mine). https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/new-leak-top-dnc-official-wanted-to-use-bernie-sanderss-religious-beliefs-against-him/ https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/new-leak-top-dnc-officia... Usually when people deny remembering having sent an e-mail that was clearly delivered it's evidence that they're lying. Your particular approach to engaging on what we don't necessarily know rather than what occurred prima facie makes me think that if you saw a nuclear explosion, you'd point out we don't know whether mushrooms do indeed grow that fast or not.

drostie 10y ago
I do not know if you are aware of how little sense this comment makes. For example, it is in the very structure of the words "disingenuous" and "consider" that the sentence "X is disingenuous; consider Y" is nonsense for all X and Y; you cannot prove that someone is being insincere by asking them to think about something that they've not thought about before. This is ignoring the bigger issue that people forget things all the time and that it does not usually mark a lie, and that even if someone is lying about some statement somewhere, it doesn't change the basic Bayesian fact that yes, you do need to consider an event in the context of all of the probability-weighted candidate explanations for it, if you want to know whether it's reasonable for a person to conclude it. I respectfully yield whatever last words are in this exchange to you.

drostie 10y ago

I do not know if you are aware of how little sense this comment makes. For example, it is in the very structure of the words "disingenuous" and "consider" that the sentence "X is disingenuous; consider Y" is nonsense for all X and Y; you cannot prove that someone is being insincere by asking them to think about something that they've not thought about before. This is ignoring the bigger issue that people forget things all the time and that it does not usually mark a lie, and that even if someone is lying about some statement somewhere, it doesn't change the basic Bayesian fact that yes, you do need to consider an event in the context of all of the probability-weighted candidate explanations for it, if you want to know whether it's reasonable for a person to conclude it. I respectfully yield whatever last words are in this exchange to you.