Originally Posted by Egor
The big problem is that your "facts" are completely based on the subjective account given to you by one side of the arguement, so they are not "facts", but hearsay.
In the context of verbal evidence there is nothing other than "subjective account." Take that evience out of court/investigation and there is nothing left. Therefore your criticism is proposterous.
Furthermore, you have a misconception of what hearsay is:
hearsay (n) information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.
Therefore the evidence I give to you is hearsay with regard to you. But a direct report to me, by one of the parties about what they actually did/saqw/experianced is not hearsay. Thus their version is a fact for me - not hearsay - upon which I am entilted to form an opinion.
So if you cannot prove my theory wrong you cannot present your version as the only true and righteous one.
I cannot prove that there has never been a blue whale in the Federal Parliament Building. However, I could be excused for calling your elephant in the FPB less rightous than mine. You, Egor, cannot put your hand on the Bible and say that Gletsos was saintly.
I'm sure that Bill has given me his version ...
I'm also sure I talked to Norm. ...
I'm fairly sure I have heard comment on it [from] Keith F, Shane B & Peter C, ...
The word "sure" is not as firm as the word "did." Are you saying that you "did" get versions from these controlled individuals. Or are you saying you recall that they said something, somewhere at some time.
Are you big on conspiracy theorys?:rolleyes:
No. :rolleyes: I am big on doing the "right thing," being fair dinkum with others, and keeping true to yourself.