home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:13221 alt.conspiracy:9405
- Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
- Path: sparky!uunet!rosevax!aquarius!grante
- From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
- Subject: Re: Plausible Denial
- Message-ID: <1992Jul25.192118.14299@rosevax.rosemount.com>
- Sender: news@rosevax.rosemount.com (USENET News administrator)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: aquarius
- Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
- Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
- References: <gVLcoB8w164w@cellar.org>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:21:18 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
- :
- : "Plausible Denial" is, in its strictest definition, a denial
- : that the listener thinks is credible. In its pragmatic use, it's
- : basically a believable lie.
- :
-
- It doesn't even have to be believable as long as it's not falsifiable.
- Not too many people (that I know of) believe that Reagan and Bush
- didn't know exactly what Ollie & Co. were doing. But, as long as we
- can't _prove_ that they knew what was going on, they have plausible
- deniability.
-
- I just looked up "plausible" and the first definition is:
-
- "Superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious."
-
- So plausible deniable would be a claim that _might_ be true, but we
- know probably isn't.
-
- --
- Grant Edwards |Yow! What should the entire
- Rosemount Inc. |human race DO?? Consume a
- |fifth of CHIVAS REGAL, ski
- grante@aquarius.rosemount.com |NUDE down MT. EVEREST, and
- |have a wild SEX WEEKEND!
-