Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my attempt to be clear about the piece of your rant I was calling attention to, I was imprecise. Your previous comment had been directed at asserting there was obviously a difference between someone verbally stating refusal and someone attempting to comply. I can see how you could choose to read that into what the other poster said, but it is not a charitable interpretation.
> There's no observable difference between inability to produce a result and refusing to produce a result. I don't see how that is open to interpretations, regardless of charitability. I think it is total, unabashed poppycock. > How do they know he didn't just forget the password? Or that the password was recorded somewhere that he no longer has access to? Credible testimony and other evidence. > After sitting in jai…
I can see a few things the author might be trying to convey. The most interesting would probably be "[There are cases where t]here's no observable difference [...]". I think the alternative I suggested ("[...] produce a result while pretending not to.") is better supported as the authors probable intent (while being a stronger statement and correspondingly less likely to be accurate).
In any case, pragmatics + charity should tell us someone wasn't asserting we can't tell the difference between a person saying "I can't" and a person saying "I won't", and if you can't figure out what else they might have meant the first thing to do is ask.