Using that logic, what would constitute evidence? That's like the senator in favor of the Japanese interment camps saying that the fact that no Japanese America

Using that logic, what would constitute evidence? That's like the senator in favor of the Japanese interment camps saying that the fact that no Japanese Americans had committed a crime was just even more evidence they were planning something. Edit: More clearly written than my comment: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_of_absence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ih/absence_of_evidence_is_evidence_o... But basically, people have already come to a conclusion. If the comments said "go <Virginia sports team>", that'd be considered evidence of made in the USA. And if the comments say " go English sports team " then that's evidence of have in the USA, because obviously comments are misleading. Why not go recursive? They wrote about cricket because they wanted to frame the Americans, who always write misleading comments to frame the Brits.