I say deliberately, because it is so specific and so easy to verify. Either the commenter has read the book, in which case such a strong statement could only be confidently made if paired with an extraordinarily bad memory, or the commenter has not read the book (or done a quick search to see if the book contains these references), in which case I consider the lie to be the result of deliberate ignorance.
> in which case I consider the lie to be the result of deliberate ignorance.
It's not a lie, if it is the result of ignorance.
I'm not even sure what "deliberate ignorance" means in this context: he knowingly doesn't know if Wolfram mentioned this, and guessing he probably did, chooses to say he didn't?
Yes. If he knows that he has never read the book and thus doesn't know what is and isn't in it, then I would consider it a deliberate lie to make a confident claim about the contents of the book.
