On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > There's also a secondary misleading (meta-misleading) to consider: did > someone mislead us to think that an error that was put in on purpose > was accidental?
No, because the 50 + 50i errors were obviously put in on purpose, which is how the report avoids misleading us as to its truth value.
