nm
No dog in that fight, but I’ve heard you mention this before, and had no idea what you could possibly mean. But now this makes perfect sense. She has concluded that it likely happened, but did not witness it and thus has plausible deniability.
She really does know that it likely happened, but can easily claim she didn’t, and people couldn’t prove that she did. This is not an uncommon way to use terms in a legal context.
Consider also when someone on the witness stand says they “don’t remember” what happened. In the conventional sense, they remember just fine. But all that matters in a legal context is whether you can prove they remember beyond a reasonable doubt.
All that matters in a legal sense is if people can prove she remembers beyond a reasonable doubt. Without that, she doesn’t “know.”
Nothing to do with platonic ideals at all. Just with legal fictions.
WTF?
Yep. definitely him.
Yes, this is it exactly. There were some really weird responses in that thread.
Nope. I have an exclusive on that gigantic hole in the ground. Okay, just that one place, possibly protected by international copyright (didn’t read the book). The rest of you can throw things while on the tour.
As I understand (probably poorly), space is expanding from every point in space, meaning that, from my perspective, I really am the Center of the Universe.
You obviously have a dog in this fight, because you’re now arguing on the fucking stupid side of it. As I said before and provided examples (which you ignored), in the show Kim blatantly obviously knows that Jimmy altered the documents. She wouldn’t have hit him if she didn’t, she wouldn’t have given him the advice to go and cover his tracks, and if she wasn’t sure she would have been completely sure once she recommended he cover his tracks and he immediately went out the door to do so.
Now this insanity is spilling over into other threads. If there is a special legal definition of “know”, then PROVIDE A CITE. Back in the thread I provided a cite to the a New Mexico Bar association (the legal authority involved in the situation in the show) using a definition of “know” which backs my position. No one has been able to provide a cite for this weird allegedly legal definition of “know”, because it’s not actually a real definition.
And if you manage that (no one in the other thread managed it), you then need to a cite showing that when discussing a TV show that involves lawyers one cannot use the normal English definition of ‘know’ on an English language, that even if someone explicitly says they’re using the ordinary English meaning of the word they HAVE to be using this weird non-standard definition that you allege is the legal definition but doesn’t seem to be used by any legal authority anywhere. (and if it’s not ‘a show that involves lawyers’, explain what the criteria is for only using the word ‘know’)
This is why I listed it as a WTF. You and the other people with this idea so insistent on the idea that the ordinary english definition of ‘knows’ can’t possible be used when discussing a show that has lawyers that you’ve decided to revive the argument here, even though you claim to have no dog in the fight. The idea that “I’m using an ordinary English word in its ordinary English meaning to discuss a TV show on an English Language message board” would be controversial, and that people would instead argue across multiple threads that you have to use some weird definition (that’s supposedly legal but not actually used by any legal authority) when discussing a show that involves lawyers is absolutely mind-boggling.
Is the difference between “know” and “believe”? One being certain knowledge and the other being something that you think to be true, but have no factual basis for thinking so?
I’m speculating and I have not read the thread in question. It’s just a common mistake that many people make with the word “know”.
Wait, I thought I was on your side, and it seemed to me that **BigT **summed it up perfectly. If you are saying that he should have used “knew” instead of “concluded that it likely happened” then I guess he didn’t put forth a strong enough conclusion. But yes, she knew. 
I betcha if you go back and check you find those are mostly on posts that have been edited. I do it myself as edited posts jamb everything to the bottom. I think I got the idea from NohhnyLA.
The WTF posts for me are the ones where people post some unintelligible message then when asked to explain will either ignore the request or post an equally unintelligible explanation. This in threads where they continue to post in.
Oops, pardon the typo… JohnnyLA.
heres the thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=836506…