Joined: May 2006
[quote=Driver,Aug. 16 2013,23:43][/quote]
|Well, gee, I wonder if any court would accept that PZ is beyond question and any possibility of reproach.|
It appears that your demi-god is the law, since you can't shake leaning on that authority.
Well, I didn't expect truth or decency from you. My "demi-god" is the means of getting to the truth that has been honed into an adversarial system that actually tests so-called evidence. Not the law, which needs to conform to it. It's shameful that truth is such a missing ingredient your spiel.
As far as the law goes, well, what else can we use at this time, other than your blatant disregard for honest methods of ascertaining truth? Even were the law changed, it's unlikely that it would affect this matter. Not that you have shown any indication of thought about this or other matters, save following your vengeful god.
| Anyhow, I did not say that PZ is "beyond possibility of reproach".|
Really? Like that was the point. You expect me to accept the word of a gutter snipe, who lacks regard for the methods that actually have a good chance of ascertaining the truth. Since you don't actually care about truth, though, this is not surprising.
| I said give me a good reason why he would lie. |
Oh I see, I'm asking you to meet the 'burden of proof,' and you cleverly (ha) pretend that I have the burden of proof to show that Myers is lying. When I didn't say that was even what was happening, no matter how many times you dishonestly suggest that this is what counts. So, you've failed egregiously once again to even contemplate what matters, instead shifting the goalposts to fit your prejudices.
| we're not in any sort of position to find out what did occur.|
On the contrary, there are multiple lines of evidence by which we can provisionally believe what is, all things considered, an unexceptional claim.
That's another mindless strawman that you bleat out with brazen stupidity. I didn't claim that it was an exceptional claim, barely-literate one, I wrote quite the opposite, that it is believable, which is why you need to provide the "multiple lines of evidence" for it before simply throwing out unsubsatantiated accusations. You provide nothing except more innuendo, more attacks, more blithering.
|In the "debate" between Oxfordians and Stratfordians, we could say that we are not in any position to find out what really occurred, but that one requires acceptance of some sources and commonplaces, and the other is a conspiracy theory with no evidence for it whatsoever. |
What a wonderful disanalogy. It shows what a vapid and ignorant way of "thinking" that you have.
|Your hyperskepticism also amounts to giving credence to a conspiracy theory for which no evidence is presented.|
Oh nice, SJW name-calling, "hyperskepticism." Actually, it's just skepticism, we're asking for substantive evidence, and you come up empty of anything but blather and lies instead.
Ah, the insult you are looking for is "semi-literate". Also has a nice double meaning. Glad to be of help.
No, that would be the truth, rather than an appropriate use of hyperbole for your poor grasp of anything written that doesn't fit your preconceptions.
Passive-aggressive dishonesty from you, I see.
Again with the idiot-level reading. That's not the only possibility
If PZ Myers published the testimony without altering it, he is the publisher not author of the account. Only if he altered it or made it up is it not the woman's testimony. If it is the woman's testimony, it is not hearsay.
My God, you're an ignorant twister of the truth. It isn't "testimony" at all in the legal sense, it's just hearsay. It doesn't become testimony even if PZM were beyond any kind of question. Here's a simple piece on hearsay:
|In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement).|
That's just how it is, there's nothing being done to make sure that the woman's statements are correct in this case, hence it's not "testimony," except in the equivocal sense.
What is more you did more goal-shifting, because the issue wasn't whether or not this was her "testimony" (which it isn't, by legal definition), but whether or not it was true. We don't know that, even if we trust PZ completely, and, given how he changed his "grenade" post, he looks slippery there, as well as in other matters.
So you fail to understand what hearsay and testimony are, and dishonestly shift the goalposts. A lot of social justice there.
| I'm not biting at the bait of your dishonest shift to other issues.|
I am talking about Shermer. There are several sources as to his conduct.
Yes I know, you dishonestly shift from the actual matter at hand, which is the unsupported allegations of rape in one case. I never once claimed that Shermer wasn't a cad or the like (nor that he didn't rape, for that matter--we hardly have evidence that can adjudicate that matter), which he may very be, but of the utter lack of decency and legality of PZ's accusations.
|Besides which, the climate is rather relevant.|
And hardly sufficient to make up for your complete lack of any kind of legally-acceptable evidence for the charge.
|Thanks for all the additional material in your last post, Glen. You clearly like to decorate your meat with lots of salad.|
- more salad.
Even if you weren't simply trying to trash by idiotic name-calling what you can't refute, it would be a whole lot better as salad than as your prevarication and indecency.
The case was reported to an organization already, who were apparently not helpful.
No-one is trying to get Shermer convicted.
That's the point, ignorant troll, you're not bothering with credible evidence, but you smear with disregard for truth.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy