Again, sure. Still sounds like you took quite a bit on testimony before this example; seems inconsistent with disregarding fairly well grounded testimony against Krauss. But not looking to argue. I thought there was inconsistency, curious as to your view. Thanks for responding.
-
-
Replying to @cheomit
No, I responded to this example. That was my first response. To the photo of the email. I do know the history from the other side & much more than I have the right to discuss. I do believe it because it comes from many sources with photos.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @cheomit
If it were women who say Krauss assaulted them who had been talking to me separately about this at the time and I knew and trusted them, I'd believe them too. I wouldn't expect anyone else to without evidence tho.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Ah, ok, great. This helps. Doesn't that mean you're stuck with only accepting serious claims from people you know well? Seems a problem! Krauss has been excluded from two institutes who would likely love to have him; that carries less weight than having a relationship?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cheomit
Well, yes. I can only say I know things to be true when I have seen evidence of them. I can believe people I know to be trustworthy but I could still be wrong & I cannot expect anyone else to believe them. The institutes might know Krauss to be guilty. This doesn't mean I do.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
No, I certainly don't know Krauss (or Phil) have done all that's claimed. But we all know knowledge and belief are different. The question is not what we know, but what we're justified in believing is likely. I think we both have evidence for reasonably concluding against both.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cheomit
OK but the examples are not the same. Phil posted the email of himself doing the thing I am criticising him for doing and admitted doing it. If he denied it and said it was made up, this would be different. Krauss denies it and says it is made up.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
So did most convinced criminals ever, to be fair... And sure, the admission hurts Phil more. But you're also pointing to evidence that's not available to most to support your case on Phil. From my outside perspective, the request ("take this claim seriously") is similar.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
You've made claims about emails and photos (and also said you don't have the emails - perhaps that you haven't seen them, I don't recall) to support your criticisms.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I've talked to him about the emails & messages & comments he sent & the legal stuff that I can't talk about, yes. He knows about this. I've not asked anyone else to believe this. Don't believe it. You don't know it to be true. He does & I was talking to him.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.