Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
It doesn't say the documents can't be proven to be fake -- it says that they haven't.
And again, nor have they been proven to be real.
Either is possible.
|
I'm not trying to participate in some sort of slackjawed argument over semiotics, Delt - I didn't claim anything of the sort that you're addressing.
However, I will reiterate my main point: the onus for proving the documents are real is on the party making the accusations and utilizing the documents. There should be considerably less 'push' to require that the accused party prove them false if the documents are in question.
So yeah, they could go either way - which probably means you should discount them heavily when assessing the accusations being made, in absence of further proof.
Does this make sense?