News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Parent comment

Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by kelvin0 on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @05:05PM (#6728957)
Well I guess if Wikipedia doesn't mention it, it didn't happend, right? Awesome argument ...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by justinpombrio on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @06:52PM (#6729500)
There's a much easier point to be made: If (i) Wikipedia doesn't mention it, and (ii) it's important enough that it would be reasonable to expect Wikipedia to mention it if there were evidence, then you should at least provide a citation as to why you believe such a thing. Otherwise, why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by sliverstorm on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @07:09PM (#6729584)
why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis

The typical line of thinking with conspiracy theories seems to be the less substantiated the theory, the more credence it should be lent, under the logic that the government is suppressing evidence.

So basically the less evidence, the more believable. Beautiful, isn't it?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by justinpombrio on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @07:17PM (#6729630)
Except for the fact that there are more false statements than true ones...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by logfromblammo on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @04:51PM (#6771441)
That appears to be a conjecture worthy of a thesis in philosophy and/or mathematics.

And where do statements of indeterminate truthfulness fit in?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement by sliverstorm on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @07:44PM (#6729747)
Ssshh, pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.
[ Parent | on HN ]