Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8971 total)
160 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 159 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,373 Year: 7,121/23,288 Month: 1,027/1,214 Week: 39/303 Day: 0/39 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science.
mark24
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 1 of 50 (24576)
11-27-2002 9:22 AM


Ten-sai,
quote:

Any of the rules of evidence you happen to be familiar with Mark. Since you are "familiar" with none (I prefer the phrase "an expert with none"), you ask a meaningless question. So how about we use the scientific rules of evidence instead? You must be familiar with those golden axioms of logic.

YOU claimed to be familiar with “rules of evidence”. Now, for the FIFTH time of asking, WHICH ONE? Name it. Why so coy?

quote:

Mark:
Could you also define "evidence", please.

quote:

Ten-sai:
That was my question precisely, and answered quite unsatisfactorily I might add. The reason I asked in the first place was because you laypeople throw around that term and deceive others into buying into most of your garbage so-so mounds of "evidence" arguments. Truth be told, you are ignorant of which you speak. My job was to clearly point that out.

Would this definition be getting close? “The definition of evidence are the rules themselves which memorialize the concept”. If not, could you give your definition, please.

quote:
Are you a lawyer too Mark? Because only a layperson would argue like this (get upset) about evidence.

I’m not upset about it, YOU brought it up, not me. Seems to me you’re the uptight one here, mate.

Also, when responding to a post, if you click “reply” at the bottom of that message, it gives the author, (& you) a cue as to whom has responded. It’s just easier to keep track of what’s going on for all concerned.

Thanks,

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-27-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 11-27-2002 10:36 AM mark24 has not yet responded
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 11-27-2002 6:18 PM mark24 has not yet responded

John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 50 (24590)
11-27-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
11-27-2002 9:22 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
YOU claimed to be familiar with “rules of evidence”. Now, for the FIFTH time of asking, WHICH ONE? Name it. Why so coy?

Well geez, Mark, he's a lawyer. It isn't about fact, but about influencing the masses.

Besides, he painted himself into a corner with that 'layperson' garbage.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 11-27-2002 9:22 AM mark24 has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 50 (24668)
11-27-2002 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mark24
11-27-2002 9:22 AM


Ten-sai,

quote:
YOU claimed to be familiar with “rules of evidence”. Now, for the FIFTH time of asking, WHICH ONE? Name it. Why so coy?

Sixth time of asking.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mark24, posted 11-27-2002 9:22 AM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by gene90, posted 11-27-2002 6:43 PM mark24 has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 2329 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 4 of 50 (24675)
11-27-2002 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by mark24
11-27-2002 6:18 PM


I agree with John.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 11-27-2002 6:18 PM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 11-28-2002 9:36 AM gene90 has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4981 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 5 of 50 (24777)
11-28-2002 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by gene90
11-27-2002 6:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I agree with John.

Hi gene...he seems to really like you to...Don't expect much of a coherent, rational, or informed response from this internet troll who claims to be a lawyer.

cheers,
M

From the Free for All
Hi Gene90,
You said-
People are executed when a preponderance of evidence supports that they are guilty, even with no surviving witnesses.

I say-
That was the most ignorant statement I've yet to see on this board. As patently false as your statement is, my question to you is simply, are you man enough to admit it? It will be difficult since you obviously have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about, and sadder still that erroneous beliefs such as above form the basis of your alleged understanding of life. Say goodbye to your credibility, you've impeached yourself!

Peace,

Ten-sai


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by gene90, posted 11-27-2002 6:43 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 11-28-2002 5:36 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3701 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 50 (24830)
11-28-2002 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mammuthus
11-28-2002 9:36 AM


Hi all,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/overview.html#article%20i

quote:

Rule 101. Scope. (Article I)

These rules govern proceedings in the courts of the United States and before United States bankruptcy judges and United States magistrate judges, to the extent and with the exceptions stated in rule 1101


I was hoping, not much, but hoping, that Ten-sai would at least be prepared to discuss his claims of superiority regarding what evidence is. He claims to "be familiar" with the rules of evidence, but as you shall see, should be made to go back to school. The federal rules of evidence, which most states vary from to some small degree, if not accept it totally, states in its very first rule that the scope of the rules apply to courts & NOTHING ELSE.

This effectively makes Ten-sai's claims moot, & makes him look somewhat foolish, since he's a lawyer & claims to be "familiar" with said rules.

So, either, there is no such thing as "evidence" outside of the courtroom (it doesn't even apply to all US courts for chrissakes), a patently ridiculous claim! Or, Ten-sai is talking out of his arse.

You choose.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 11-28-2002 9:36 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Ten-sai
Unregistered


Message 7 of 50 (24862)
11-28-2002 8:49 PM


Hi Mark,

When I was a wee ole chap in law school learning about the logic of evidence, I studied the Model Rules, applicable both everywhere and nowhere...

Then I meet you. Another wannabe lawyer who pontificates on both jurisdiction and venue, both irrelevant to logic and analytical reasoning. Obvious you never read past page one of any codified rules of evidence, nor verified your assumptions by diligent research of precedent (legal peer-review). So how about those scientific rules of evidence already? Sadly, they don't exist.

Wonder if you know the difference (b/n venue and jurisdiction?) Go look it up and get back to us...

Peace,

Ten-sai

PS. Evidence is a legally OBJECTIVE term, moron. The term is not subjective as you want it to be; maybe that's why we see all this "evidence" for (but mysteriously never against) evolution. Even Mams admitted as much in his (unsatisfactory) definition of evidence submitted via Webster. So stop using legal terms within the JURISDICTION of learned Doctors of Jurisprudence, and I'm outta here. You can still be jealous of lawyers though, what do we care?

Although some educated folk might think you are downright lying about the rules of evidence (you cited Federal Rules) not applying to science, I would preempt such an accusation by saying you are just stupid and ignorant. I suppose no forensic science was ever utilized as evidence in court? You, like Gene90, have impeached yourself! Typical of the layperson.

Anyway, the Rules of Evidence will most certainly apply to the civil rights suit I will visit upon some unsuspecting professor of evolution one day. If you actually get a degree in science and earn a professorsip here in these United States, maybe it could be you!

Have a good day, mate.


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by wj, posted 11-28-2002 9:34 PM You have not yet responded
 Message 11 by Quetzal, posted 11-29-2002 2:47 AM You have not yet responded
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 11-29-2002 8:47 AM You have not yet responded
 Message 25 by mark24, posted 12-02-2002 12:03 PM You have not yet responded

  
Ten-sai
Unregistered


Message 8 of 50 (24867)
11-28-2002 9:23 PM


Hi Mark!

One other thing:

Did "scope" (i.e. "govern") mean venue or jurisdiction? Go look it up and get back to us! We'll be waiting...

When you discover the answer, tell us how it interacts with the U.S. Constitution, Federal and State Law, Rules of Procedure, and applicable and controlling case law. Your first attempt at a legal brief should certainly be interesting (you may include a discussion of how US rules of evidence are distinguishable from UK rules of evidence).

Meanwhile, please don't forget to advise us of the exceptions noted in Rule 101!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are way out of your field here, Mark, whatever in the world that is?

Peace,

Ten-sai


  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 50 (24871)
11-28-2002 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ten-sai
11-28-2002 8:49 PM


No, just a troll. Thanks for coming TS. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ten-sai, posted 11-28-2002 8:49 PM Ten-sai has not yet responded

Ten-sai
Unregistered


Message 10 of 50 (24880)
11-28-2002 10:49 PM


Dear Mams and Wj,

I think you will quite readily find the definition of "internet troll" to fit squarely within the behavior of those who would register hundreds of anonymous posts this year on this very same site to the bitter end of accomplishing nothing.

Peace,

Ten-sai


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 11-29-2002 6:40 AM You have not yet responded
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 11-29-2002 7:17 AM You have not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4378 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 50 (24897)
11-29-2002 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ten-sai
11-28-2002 8:49 PM


quote:
Anyway, the Rules of Evidence will most certainly apply to the civil rights suit I will visit upon some unsuspecting professor of evolution one day.
This is twice now you've made the claim that you intend to file a civil rights suit "someday". **Yawn**. When you actually get the nerve to file it, come back and tell us.

Alternatively, you could give it your best shot here - on this board. Go for it, slick.

Flippin' wannabe-somebody ambulance chaser. All tort lawyers should be drowned at birth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ten-sai, posted 11-28-2002 8:49 PM Ten-sai has not yet responded

Ten-sai
Unregistered


Message 12 of 50 (24901)
11-29-2002 5:52 AM


Hi Quetzel,

Q-
Alternatively, you could give it your best shot here - on this board. Go for it, slick.

T-
But you don't even know what evidence is, so how could we start? I know, we could use the scientific rules of evolutionary evidence! Another layperson giving us a tacit admission of ignorance by ejaculating a belief that an anonymous internet chat room is equivelant to a courtroom. The internet chat room is a Kangaroo Court - your field - the other is where learned Doctors of Jurisprudence prove things based on evidence. I can imagine where you'd feel more comfortable.

Anyway, in order for us to "go for it", you'd have to hire legal counsel. Get it? That's how it works. You, however, are incompetent to proceed; especially since you believe a civil rights claim falls under the scope of Tort law. Hooboy!

How about finding a lawyer to argue your case? Could it be that you have no case to present?

That leaves us then with only you. So I waive your incompentence - nay, I stipulate to it. Tell us precisely why my civil rights claim would fail since you are so familiar with the elements of my claim? Cite relevant case law - that is, peer reviewed literature in the legal arena. You will lose this argument. So why even try, right? Too bad, you could've provided me with some entertainment. At present, the ignorant comments from the layperson peanut gallery are borish.

Good luck though whatever you choose to do! With over 600 posts this year, it sounds like you lead a rather productive life.

Peace,

Ten-sai


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Quetzal, posted 11-29-2002 7:06 AM You have not yet responded
 Message 16 by Mammuthus, posted 11-29-2002 7:33 AM You have not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4981 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 13 of 50 (24905)
11-29-2002 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Ten-sai
11-28-2002 10:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Ten-sai:
Dear Mams and Wj,

I think you will quite readily find the definition of "internet troll" to fit squarely within the behavior of those who would register hundreds of anonymous posts this year on this very same site to the bitter end of accomplishing nothing.

Peace,

Ten-sai


+++++++++++++
For someone who claimed initially to be so bored with this debate your own post count is steadily rising. In addition, you have yet to make any kind of point. Since you brought up forensic evidence as valid, do you actually know anything about the field and how it developed? I doubt it as it involved scientific evidence. Again, why should a scientist give a shit about legal definitions of evidence? You seek to chase ambulances and make money regardless of the truth using the legal system and legal evidence. Science looks for the truth and how nature works...it does not rest on winning a court case or by consensus of public opinion.....have fun with the civil case against evolution...that should be a laugher.

But stick around the site...you could supplement your income as a comedian with your inane posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Ten-sai, posted 11-28-2002 10:49 PM Ten-sai has not yet responded

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4378 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 14 of 50 (24910)
11-29-2002 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Ten-sai
11-29-2002 5:52 AM


Hey slick - never said your suit would fail. Merely pointed out that pontificating on what you're going to do at some unspecified time in the future is a joke. It's very difficult to take you seriously - and even if I did, I couldn't care less about what a lawyer thinks about biology, or science, or literally anything else. (I except my corporate attorney - he's great at keeping us out of trouble various government agencies inre taxes, licenses, etc.)

It looks to me you literally have no argument since all you've done since you showed up here is repeat the same insults. You've neither supported your assertions, nor even shown you know anything about the law. Just proclaimed that none of us do. Guess what? Who cares?

Tell you what, if we're all so ignorant, why bother even proclaiming it? You really ought to try some other board - the BaptistBoard, or ChristianForums, for example. You'll have lots of people groveling at your feet in awe of your expertise in no time. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that anyone here is overly impressed.

Do let me know whenever you decide to actually post something substantive, won't you. Or actually file your "civil rights suit" lol.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Ten-sai, posted 11-29-2002 5:52 AM Ten-sai has not yet responded

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4981 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 15 of 50 (24912)
11-29-2002 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Ten-sai
11-28-2002 10:49 PM


Oh yeah troll boy,

Show us with all your wonderful educational qualifications the evidence for genomic imprinting of the H19 locus using a legal definition of evidence. LOL! You are pitiful...your 18 posts are sufficient evidence.

Have fun being bored and leaving the building.

For such a high flying $175/hour lawyer you seem to have a lot of free time to post on this forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Ten-sai, posted 11-28-2002 10:49 PM Ten-sai has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020