3 ms·
Of course, that's why I lauged: it's so perfectly banal with respect to their history. The key concept behind plausible deniability is plausibility, after all
by pohl 16y ago
Of course, that's why I lauged: it's so perfectly banal with respect to their history. The key concept behind plausible deniability is plausibility, after all.
So the most one can say is that this tells us nothing.
Well, no, actually there is enough in that article to demonstrate that plausible deniability is exactly what they needed to bridge their admitted desire to help with their admitted reluctance to be perceived as helping.
But no more than that.
- brudgers 16y agoPeople point to Microsoft's $16 million license fee as evidence that they were trying to kill open source software but ignore the $9 million paid to SCO for a similar license by Sun. Why? Because saying "Sun tried to kill open source software," just makes a person look ignorant.
- pohl 16y agoSee, you are no stranger to the concept of plausible deniability: using the third person plural "people point to" (and the hypothetical about Sun) allows you to plausibly deny the ad hominem. It's beautiful how that works, isn't it. Well played, sir. For the record, I agree there is an absence of evidence (in light of your link). I won't take this as evidence of absence, however.