Again - I'm not defending Phil. I dislike what I saw there. It may not rise to illegal, but still seems like there's more going on; and he's certainly said this isn't the first exchange. I was only considering your (much?) earlier response to accusations he's dicey to engage.
-
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @CathyYoung63
Apologies - it seemed like you took earlier accusations (possibly quite a while back) seriously before any hard evidence was necessarily available to you. Again, my interpretation, please correct me if I'm wrong (because my whole inquiry rests on it).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cheomit @CathyYoung63
Hard evidence has been available to me for some time. I have not been at liberty to talk about it. What I responded to publicly was what Phil himself admitted to.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @CathyYoung63
Sure, your replies have made that clear, but my questions is, was it available since you *first* took the accusations seriously? If yes, my *entire* concern dies on the spot.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cheomit @CathyYoung63
No, it wasn't. When people I trusted messaged me to warn me against talking to Phil because he did this, I took their warnings seriously because of my knowledge of them as honest people but I did not have evidence they were true and so did not claim to know this.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I saw it very soon afterwards in relation to three people. You are confusing believing things from credible people with knowing them to be true, claiming them to be true & expecting society to regard them as true.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @CathyYoung63
No, I'm absolutely not. I'm definitely trying to distinguish between knowledge and reasonably justified belief. I think your belief, as you describe it, was perfectly justified - but not knowledge. I think the same for belief - not knowledge- about Krauss.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cheomit @CathyYoung63
Quite possibly. People who know the victims to be trustworthy could believe them. People who know Krauss to be could believe him. One of them is wrong. This is why we need evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @CathyYoung63
We have evidence - including the fact that he's been investigated and barred from two institutions. That's quite a bit. I'm not willing to lock him up (even take him to court) on that; but I think it's enough to treat him with suspicion, or choose to avoid him.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There is evidence of him being investigated and barred from two institutions, yes. I believe that both of those things have happened.
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.