4 ms·
Let's not go there. Incorporating random anonymous posts will only make things worse. For all we know Julie-Ann started dating someone close to Theresa Preston
by mtrimpe 13y ago
Let's not go there. Incorporating random anonymous posts will only make things worse.
For all we know Julie-Ann started dating someone close to Theresa Preston-Werner who shared that he, and several others, slept with her and could even be the father of Tom's child and then refused to distance himself from Theresa. When she shared this sad state of affairs in her private love life with some colleagues she was suddenly requested to meet with Theresa and....
See how that's both consistent and perfectly plausible yet still went from bad to worse pretty quickly? These things are messy enough as they are; let's not make them any messier than they need to be.
- chippy 13y ago>if Julie wants to share this story so publicly then everyone should at least have all of the story the whole thing is crass and distasteful to my british sensibilities, but if this the future of how conflict in internet corporations is represented, then we shouldn't be surprised to see allegations from all sides. The key skills that we as audience have to develop is critical thinking, impartiality and a good sense of decency.
- 001sky 13y agowe shouldn't be surprised to see allegations from all sides. The line is drawn at "anonymous internet sources". At least in the sense of euclidean geometry, that is not a "side" of the argument as much as it is a literary device to create an infinite attack surface.
- chippy 13y agoWe shouldn't be surprised, still, but we should be more on our guard when looking at the sources from any angle.
- jamesaguilar 13y agoSince you don't have a means of contact in your profile, I'm just going to tell you directly. That was an incredible turn of phrase. Really nicely said.
- nailer 13y agoAnyone speaking against Horvath would be publicly attacked, and GitHub employees aren't allowed to speak of the matter. Unfortunately anonymity is the only option.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- devicenull 13y agoIs a source any more reputable just because it's not anonymous?
- caf 13y agoYes. A named or pseudonymous source necessarily has an associated reputation, but an anonymous source has no reputation at all.
- Blahah 13y agoA reputation for lying is stronger evidence that the information might be false than is no reputation at all.
- apalmer 13y agoNot really... Even taking all emotion out of it, a story from a source that is probably a lie convey s more emotion than a story from a completely unknown source.
- fphhotchips 13y agoI disagree. We must treat every anonymous source as if it has that reputation for lying, as otherwise a source can simply become anonymous to improve the credibility of their lies. Until, of course, a source presents evidence, at which point we evaluate the credibility of the evidence instead of the source.
- mbillie1 13y agoMaybe not by definition, but it's almost irrelevant because a not anonymous source is so much easier to verify / disprove. Sure, in theory an anonymous source could be 100% accurate, but since they are very tricky to back up, they almost always have the effect of stirring the pot without resolving anything, and thus quite often appear as nothing more than attempts to do just that. And after a while, people unsurprisingly start to treat them as such.
- ibrahima 13y ago
- mundanevoice 13y agoHow about it being true? You still want to ignore that? Or are you too biased?