|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ten-sai, Evidence, Law, & Science. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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?
quote: quote: 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: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ten-sai,
quote: Sixth time of asking. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3824 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
I agree with John.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: 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 AllHi 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi all,
Page not found | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ten-sai Guest |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ten-sai Guest |
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 |
No, just a troll. Thanks for coming TS. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ten-sai Guest |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5873 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ten-sai Guest |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: +++++++++++++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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5873 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024