> One of the classic signs of a conspiracy theory is that it is not falsifiable: evidence to the contrary is actually evidence of the the theory!
"Evidence" that could be evidence in either direction isn't useful evidence. :) The theory that they probably failed to pay some party (whether financially or some other form of power-kickback) was my first thought on reading the initial story. It seems to be as valid of a theory as any other without clear evidence pointing either way.
Is that what happened? I honestly have no idea, thus I have no idea whether this incident points towards more or less corruption.
"Evidence" that could be evidence in either direction isn't useful evidence. :) The theory that they probably failed to pay some party (whether financially or some other form of power-kickback) was my first thought on reading the initial story. It seems to be as valid of a theory as any other without clear evidence pointing either way.
Is that what happened? I honestly have no idea, thus I have no idea whether this incident points towards more or less corruption.