[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Daniel,

I edited my original post to delete a middle paragraph. It may have been better if I'd left it in. To paraphrase, it said:

I am convinced of certain things to the core of my being, because I have been told these things by people I trust completely. But it would still be both irresponsible and misleading if I were to take this assuredness I feel based on relationships and trust, and relay it to an unknowing third person as a fact that I actually know. This third person does not know (or, thereby, have reason for great trust) the person/people that I listened to in forming my conviction, and therefore the third person should have the option to accept or reject this hearsay independently. If I present it as fact I know, I deprive the listener of the opportunity to form an opinion based on the truth (which is that I heard something, not that I know something).

This (above) is why I think someone can say they know something with 99% certainty, and yet not be willing to state it as fact. If I say I believe something at 99% but it is based on something I heard from someone you don't know, or in a conversation you didn't hear, your confidence may be more like ... 50%. And I have a duty to allow you to take that at 50% instead of me presenting it as 100% fact.

OK. That was pretty long and drawn out. But I don't see any inconsistency, and certainly no irresponsibility, in anything anyone here has said about the Wagner. And as to naming the people that said it ... well those people have to make that decision for themselves. Shame on someone if they presume to make it for them.

J