3 ms·
I'll paste a comment I made in an HN thread a few days ago, since this seems to be the same blog post: Not exactly the "full story" when it omits the facts tha
by throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
I'll paste a comment I made in an HN thread a few days ago, since this seems to be the same blog post:
Not exactly the "full story" when it omits the facts that support differing conclusions. That's sort of the opposite of "full story".
Some moderating details:
* Documents were damaged by a mold that is hazardous to health
* State archivist claims the documents were of "low historical value"
* Archivist claims some were confidential, and couldn't be legally released to 3rd party
http://www.wral.com/historians-lament-destruction-of-franklin-county-records/13229922/ http://www.wral.com/historians-lament-destruction-of-frankli...
- minikites 13y agoSee Asparagirl's great comments about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7017891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7017891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7018441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7018441
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- bonemachine 13y agoSmells like plausible deniability. The "mold" claim is especially dubious.