> > IMO, the authenticity of the "emails" should be empirically verified before > the debate even begins; otherwise they're invalid as evidence of anything > else other than someone went to a great deal of trouble to produce a lot of > text files. > > These wouldn't hold up in a court of law, why even debate until > authenticity > is proven.
I'm not the one debating them or their contents - the professors that allegedly wrote the emails and the general public (which the professors claim are not educated enough to properly interpret their contents) are. As other folks have said, both the school and professors have verified the following: a) Emails were released by a third party - a hacker. b) The emails that are being discussed in the media originated from the university and the professors in question. c) The contents of the messages released match the contents of the messages on the mail server. The fact that nobody seems to be saying, "I didn't write that," would also lead me to believe that the messages are legitimate. But if you want to call a duck a frog just because it's got webbed feet and spends a lot of time in the water, be my guest. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:308895 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
