--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > [Rick wrote:] > > > There were numerous witnesses, in the person of > > > multiple women. Each had their own "events". > > > Only one has had the guts to write a book. > > > > Well, so you now have several people claiming that > > several different events happened, apparently > > always in private. Still not anything more than > > he-said, she-said. > <snip> > But your attempts to make it seem as if you can > write it off without reading it because of he said > she said is nonsense. You just don't want to read > it. Fair enough. Your choice. But assessing > credibility ahead of time just reveals how our minds > protect cherished beliefs from counter evidence. > You are not upholding some principle of not taking > he said she said stories seriously.
Look, I'm completely convinced the story is true. But I'm also in total agreement with what Lawson is saying. You're overinterpreting the point he's making and attributing it to a belief on his part that the account is false, but you aren't doing that on the basis of anything he's actually *said*. (Actually I don't agree with what he says about "preponderance of evidence" in a civil case. That standard is looser than he thinks. But there's a distinction between "de jure" (as a matter of law) and "de facto" (as a matter of fact). It's entirely possible for a person to be a child molester, to use your example, *de jure* but not *de facto*. Or vice-versa.)
