3 ms·
I still see no justification for assuming that the board member's voice was not heard before the publication. There's zero evidence for it, while the priors oug
by dchftcs 3y ago
I still see no justification for assuming that the board member's voice was not heard before the publication. There's zero evidence for it, while the priors ought to be favoring the contrary because she does wield a fairly material form of power. If more evidence does emerge, then we could revisit the premise.
- nicce 3y ago> she does wield a fairly material form of power. How? Being a board member is not enough. There were aready likely two against her in this case, while the rest is unknown.