I don't follow you Bruce. I think the example of a questionable or dubious source is sufficient to justify support of a questionable date but I don't understand how the audience is relevant.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] Questionable vs. approximate
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Gerard Ashton <[log in to unmask]>
> > Let me give examples of questionable vs. approximate:
> > A reliable source such as the New York Times reports a certain person
> > was found on the streets at the age of about three and the best
> > estimate of his birth date is July, 1990. This is approximate.
> > An infamous tabloid reports a certain celebrity was born October 9,
> > 1940, the same day as a well known musician. The article goes on to
> > make many highly speculative comparisons between the two celebrities.
> > The date is not approximate, but it is questionable due to the
> > reputation of the tabloid.
> So the questionableness is a consequence of the source. But it's also
> of the audience I imagine.