Your phrase “she shouldn’t give false information” certainly implies a volitional aspect.
If she didn’t deliberately give “false information,” then she made an honest mistake (if the facts are at variance) and then what in Hell’s Bells is so upsetting and disqualifying about that?
Again, why do you assume the information was false and that, even if it was false, that she did more than make an honest mistake?
Your last post: Your phrase “she shouldn’t give false information” certainly implies a volitional aspect. If she didn’t deliberately give “false information,” then she made an honest mistake (if the facts are at variance) and then what in Hell’s Bells is so upsetting and disqualifying about that? Again, why do you assume the information was false and that, even if it was false, that she did more than make an honest mistake?
Your last post is ironic nonsense.
Read your first post, post #73. YOU are the one who first gave an excuse for what Bachmann said, based on the scenario that the information Bachmann gave was false.
I then responded to YOUR scenario by saying, "fine, then she shouldn’t give false information".
The scenario, was YOURS. I responded to it.
Add to that, you then assumed that I assumed that she was lying, when there is nothing in what I said that calls her a liar.
The word "false" means "incorrect". One can give incorrect information without lying. One can criticize one who gives incorrect information for reasons other than thinking that the person is a liar.
Do I need to explain those reasons to you??