True of fake, you offered no proof at all, None of the 3 differe

來源: passerby2016 2019-04-11 18:18:06 [] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (784 bytes)

the 1st two versions are different summaries of the original document, by different authors. they are expected to be different from each other and from the original document. Yet they may not what they claimed to be. In this sense, they could be fake, but you offered no proof. The 3rd one presented the title in a table of contents.  If it is not the right one, you may call it fake. But you offered no proof either. To prove it is fake, you need to present the true title of the original document from a credible source.

I agree one should be careful when quoting sources on the web because it is full of fake info. Yet it does not mean anything from a less credible source is necessarily fake. the key is to verify and have a sense of logic.

所有跟帖: 

None of the 3 different versions claimed to be the original docu -passerby2016- 給 passerby2016 發送悄悄話 (0 bytes) () 04/11/2019 postreply 18:19:09

照這樣說,有幾百個“版本”都不奇怪,你想想,每個造反派組織都去轉載或翻印一遍。。。 -yuntai- 給 yuntai 發送悄悄話 yuntai 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 04/11/2019 postreply 19:17:04

sorry, No Chinglish here, Please ! -弓尒- 給 弓尒 發送悄悄話 弓尒 的博客首頁 (1583 bytes) () 04/12/2019 postreply 10:18:08

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”