[sokoloff]

> There is no evidence that "ironmagma is a not a troll".

I think there is evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ironmagma

Trolls would reasonably able to be detected by the contents of their posts/comments. Looking over the comment history, I see an absence of evidence that they are a troll and, in this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence [because we can reasonably exhaust all of the "trials" [past comments]].

[FrustratedMonky]

That is if someone looks. And has the same subjective view to interpret those comments.

I've seen plenty of people watch the exact same debate, and each believes 100% that their side wont hands down. Of course "there is no evidence" one side won or not.

The point is that "there is no evidence" is being used to promote the opposite views.

So I can disparage ironmagma in a title of an article, and all the reader who flips through them is left with impression that "ironmagma must be a troll, lot's of good people think so, and there is no evidence he isn't".

I probably should have come up with better example. But there is "no evidence" that the outcome would be different.