MSGID: 2:221/1.58@fidonet f883c52d
REPLY: 2:280/5555 61e5380e
PID: OpenXP/5.0.51 (Win32)
CHRS: ASCII 1
TZUTC: -0500
Hello Michiel!

** On Monday 17.01.22 - 10:32, you wrote to me:

 M> The principle of "the burden of proof is on the one making
 M> the claim" is used in science. That is where I come from.

My understanding of "burden of proof" (BOP) is that it only  
comes into play when the claim is of an accusatory nature: in a  
dispute.  Same thing applies when filing insurance claims,  
criminal claims, etc..  All of those types have a root damage  
associated with the claim.  Sean's claim does not encompass  
damages or harm.

Sean's claim was not a dispute. It was a statement.  Your  
response was accusatory (possibly harmful to character) that  
his statement was false, thus the burden was on you.

HOWEVER, I read that BOP can also apply in science where a  
certain claim is made, and thus the BOP is on the scientist.   
But I doubt that BOP is an issue unless the scientist ends up  
in litigation, where a harm is associated with the claim.

This echo transfer matter issue is far from a harmful nature.  
And, as I pointed it out it is very easy for Janis to have  
communicated the necessary password for elist purposes.   
Occam's razor comes to mind.  ;)  No need to delve into complex  
theories of foul play. That's much more complicated.

--
  ../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.51
 * Origin:  (2:221/1.58)
SEEN-BY: 1/123 14/0 15/0 18/200 90/1 105/81 106/201 120/340 123/131
SEEN-BY: 153/7715 203/0 221/1 6 360 226/30 227/114 229/110 200 307
SEEN-BY: 229/317 400 424 426 664 700 240/5832 249/206 266/512 280/464
SEEN-BY: 280/5003 282/1038 292/789 854 8125 301/1 317/3 320/219 322/757
SEEN-BY: 335/364 342/200 396/45 410/9 423/81 633/280 712/848
PATH: 221/1 292/854 229/426