Kevin and I did a back-and-forth on this on his FB page late last night until I had to call it off and get to sleep. He had insisted that the source had been "discredited," because it was shown that the source's evidence was second-hand. I explained, again and again, that that would have been true had the source's story been proven to be false. At this moment, that's not been shown to be the case. Perhaps, in time, it will be. But we await corroborative sourcing. Should it not come, then, yes, "discredited" will be the appropriate word. But should it indeed come, then "vindicated" will thus apply. Let's wait and see before jumping the gun.
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 7:52:12 PM UTC-4, Kevin M. (RPCV) wrote: > > Lawrence ran a story that hadn’t been vetted by NBC News. The single > source turned out not to have seen what he claimed. > > https://twitter.com/lawrence/status/1166529030352510976?s=21 > > Today, the mea culpa. > > https://twitter.com/lawrence/status/1166800943272353792?s=21 > > > -- > Kevin M. (RPCV) > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tvornottv/fde0b941-6121-414d-9680-14ab50890c1b%40googlegroups.com.
