On 4 Feb 2005 12:41:27 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005 04:52:23 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Now, have you seen the latest stupidity in the Washington Post?

It's not stupidity. Everything in the article has been researched,
and
verified, unlike you, who makes wild assumptions, and posts things
that
are not true about others.

Now, I ask you, isn't that atrocious?

It sure is, I wish you'd quit posting such atrocities.


Gosh, researched and verified, huh? Do you reckon that's why they
printed this retraction yesterday evening?

Hmm, are you REALLY so stupid that you don't think that just because
something is researched and verified, that it can't be retracted??????
Answer: there is no corelation between the two.

Are you saying there is no relationship between the truth of a story
and the verification of a story?

Here is how a (probably conservative, goose-stepping) dictionary
defines 'verify'.

Main Entry: ver·i·fy
Pronunciation: 'ver-&-"fI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English verifien, from Middle French verifier, from
Medieval Latin verificare, from Latin verus true
1 : to confirm or substantiate in law by oath
2 : to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of

There *must* be some relationship (although perhaps not a mathematical
correlation) between the 'truth' and 'verification'. No?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes