To be or not to be
From the Ars Digita link
It means that a lot of the blame-laying is subjective finger-pointing and interpretation, and not something to settled by reference to objective criteria.
ok,ok, but this guy is expressing his experience (all that he has got), so why does he feel the need to derate it by this 'there is no such thing as truth at all' clause?
No, he's simply acknowledging that he does not have all the facts. He was not privy to every conversation and he wasn't involved in each and every decision.
If he didn't have all the facts, he could have just said, "This my perception based on my experiences". To say that it is one of many truths is just a bit of harmless rhetoric, but I guess it's rhetoric which pisses off some people. There are areas where I think the "rational" either/or true/false philosophy falls apart, but that's not really one of them.
It wasn't (probably) meant to mean what you think it means. The "multiple truth" statements was used by Phil Greenspun in his book on web publishing to show that in life there rarely is an only, ultimate point of view on anything and what Phil was trying to show at that time was that web based publishing is superior to traditional publishing (books/magazines) because it allows capturing (via comments) experiences of other people on the subject(i.e. "multiple truths") as opposed to "one truth" available in traditional media (think book review in NYT vs. user reviews for the same book on Amazon.com)
> Truth is like 1 and 0, anything you say is either true or false.
Fog Creek Home