True stories "evolve" too, but they don't typically evolve in the way Reade's has. It's a strike against her allegations, for sure.
There's a difference between more information coming to light and the story changing to suit its current environment. I don't consider more information "evolving the story" (although I suppose I can see someone thinking their understanding of the story is evolving with more information).
Here smart guy
"Distinguishing between the true, wholly false and partly false vivid memories of healthy adults is impossible currently unless the content of the memories contains an obvious impossibility or contradiction. Even then such a distinction may not be possible." https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publicati ... e_law.html
- Your links often don't support the thing you think they do
You don't read them, you just believe Lemmie. Jesus Christ I quote them all the time. EAllusion sometimes disagrees and tells me that there are many ways to interpret a study, but he doesn't tell me "links often don't support" like you just did.
"Distinguishing between the true, wholly false and partly false vivid memories of healthy adults is impossible currently unless the content of the memories contains an obvious impossibility or contradiction. Even then such a distinction may not be possible." https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publicati ... e_law.html
- Your links often don't support the thing you think they do
You don't read them, you just believe Lemmie. Jesus Christ I quote them all the time. EAllusion sometimes disagrees and tells me that there are many ways to interpret a study, but he doesn't tell me "links often don't support" like you just did.
Another way of putting it is that the conclusions you want to draw from the information contained in your links don't necessarily follow from that information.
It like the blurb you just quoted. What did that have to do with my post? We can't determine the veracity of her memory so... what? That means the facts of the story can change over time and still be true?
The connection you make to what you read is the thing I'm not seeing, I guess. That's the thing you don't express well, and it might be because you're making an impossible leap.
Another way of putting it is that the conclusions you want to draw from the information contained in your links don't necessarily follow from that information.
Sometimes, but I am right most of the time. So can you give me some examples or are you going to just do name calling like Lemmie?
It like the blurb you just quoted. What did that have to do with my post? We can't determine the veracity of her memory so... what? That means the facts of the story can change over time and still be true?
No. Her "evolving" story doesn't disprove her accusation. You said, "Yes, strictly speaking, I don't know for sure if she's lying. Strictly speaking, I don't know if Mormons are lying when they tell me they know the church is true, either." There are reasons to suspect that she is lying, but there is no evidence that disproves her accusation, so you can't compare it with Mormonism.
- Your links often don't support the thing you think they do
You don't read them, you just believe Lemmie. Jesus Christ I quote them all the time. EAllusion sometimes disagrees and tells me that there are many ways to interpret a study, but he doesn't tell me "links often don't support" like you just did.
Another way of putting it is that the conclusions you want to draw from the information contained in your links don't necessarily follow from that information.
Sometimes, but I am right most of the time. So can you give me some examples or are you going to just do name calling like Lemmie?
So can you give me some examples or are you going to just do name calling like Lemmie?
Dude, I'm not going to do any research for you, reviewing your past posts. I have better uses of my time. Take my impressions for what they're worth. If you see truth in them, do something about it. If not, don't.
Tell you what, next time I feel moved to chase down one of your claims, I'll let you know what I think. You have to spark my interest first.
Biden said, "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it’s been made worse or better over time."
I think Biden will get accused by more women before Nov. Hopefully Sanders stays in the race and fights for the nomination in the convention.
Um, short memory +1, DT 0
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent