I'm up in arms about the prosecution and suicide, but Hal is one of the few people I trust wholeheartedly to tell the truth about MIT's involvement. So much so that if he came to a conclusion "It was an oops, a piece of paper got misplaced and no one at MIT's at any fault," I'd accept it without a second thought.

I think you just gave them an out.

I hold dr. Abelson in the highest regard but if that were his conclusion I think that might change. Such a conclusion would indicate sloppy work, a single misplaced piece of paper could not have had these consequences within an organization such as MIT. For want of a horseshoe the kingdom was lost, but this is not the 14th century and enough people knew about this case that I highly doubt a single piece of paper could have had that effect.

I know what scarmig means: I believe Hal would resign before putting out falsehoods or a whitewash.

Also, I don't consider it "them" so much as "us". I may have been a mere cog, but still love the place 15 years later.

> I believe Hal would resign before putting out falsehoods or a whitewash.

I believe so too. But that particular example wasn't very good.

The point was that, no matter how apparently ridiculous the conclusion, scarmig would accept it without question because the source was that credible. The more exaggerated the hypothesized conclusion, the more strongly that point was made.

I believe that scarmig's example very clearly stated his position.

I would bet large sums of money that I do not actually have that the conclusion we get will nowhere near that ridiculous. I would bet reasonably large sums of money that Abelson will prove not corruptible on this issue.

Aaron's father met with the chancellor on two separate occasions, so I think that losing a piece of paper is not likely to be the outcome.