On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
> At 06:24 PM 12/20/2012, James Bowery wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <<mailto: >> a...@lomaxdesign.com>a**b...@lomaxdesign.com <a...@lomaxdesign.com>> wrote: >> At 05:06 PM 12/20/2012, James Bowery wrote: >> >>> Faking that video would be difficult enough to motivate a "Russ" type of >>> fellow, who has access to the requisite resources, to proceed to replicate >>> the recipe. >> >> >> Aw, c'mon. That level of fake would be trivial. Sure, the video might be >> made so that it would be difficult. But it would still be quite possible >> with video editing software. >> Look, it's a lot of work to replicate something like this. I would *not* >> invest that work unless: >> >> You aren't a "Russ" kind of guy, though, are you? >> > > Actually, I am. It's a lot of work, though, so I pick my battles. Precisely my point. His threshold of evidence required for action is much different from yours. Moreover "trivial" and "difficult" and "quite possible" are a reasonably wide spread. The point of making the criteria for acceptability "difficult" is that we are potentially engaged in what amounts to warfare: The "enemy" in this possible "war" is inflicting damage (wild goose chases) with little cost (trolling cyberspace), albeit not on those of us who are not investing time and energy. The goal is to inflict more damage on the enemy (on his ability to inflict damage) at less cost.
