wenglund wrote:No. Obviously. One would have to seriously mangle my comment in order to come to that mistaken conclusion. You are the one offeringg hearsay evidence. Please look up the word "hearsay" and learn.
Wade I demonstrated in the post that I understand the difference. You are welcome to reread my post.
Trevor wrote:You can consider it hearsay coming from me.
The point is that the story has not been proved a bald-faced lie.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
And what the hell do you think you have offered if not hearsay evidence, wade? Were you there? All you are doing is relaying the testimony of someone else who was there. Seriously wade, it is pointless trying to reason with someone who has a brain lock on defending all things LDS and everyone LDS, no matter what. Your argument makes no sense:
When I tell you what the Mormon guy who was there says, that counts as "documented first hand account" but when you tell me what the non-Mormon who was there says, that counts as hearsay!
Trevor wrote:Wade I demonstrated in the post that I understand the difference. You are welcome to reread my post.
You demonstrated in that post that you have a mistaken understanding of what is hearsay. That is why I suggested that you look it up. What YOU are offering here is clearly hearsay. You aren't telling us what you experienced first-hand, but what you were told by someone who alledgedly did expereinece it first-hand. Your second-hand statement is, by definition, hearsay.
Lesson on evidence hopefully over. Back on topic.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
Kevin Graham wrote:Someone with admitted learning disabilities is ordering a seasoned scholar to "learn"... now that's rich!
But such is the sad state of LDS apologetics. Wade epitomizes everything that is wrong with it, as well as its phoniness.
You know, I am not one to trumpet my few achievements and expect every non-PhD to kowtow to me, but the lack of even minimal credit for my work is something that I find mystifying. I don't care what Wade's issues are, but the guy misreads what I write and then undertakes to correct me on the basis of his faulty reading. That really takes the cake.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
wenglund wrote:You demonstrated in that post that you have a mistaken understanding of what is hearsay. That is why I suggested that you look it up. What YOU are offering here is clearly hearsay. You aren't telling us what you experienced first-hand, but what you were told by someone who alledgedly did expereinece it first-hand. Your second-hand statement is, by definition, hearsay.
Lesson on evidence hopefully over.
Wade, how many times do you have to read my post over, or how many times do I have to quote it, before you can accept that I already acknowledged that distinction?
Trevor wrote:You can consider it hearsay coming from me. But I do not consider it hearsay coming from the firsthand witness.
Please do not continue to pretend that I did not demonstrate a correct understanding of hearsay.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
The best thing about this thread is that all of Will's disgusting comments towards women are collected and documented now, and it was done by a credible female scholar who has no particular ax to grind. This thread encapsulates not only the immoral tendencies of Will Schryver's character, but also the silly ways by which fellow apologists try to downplay the significance of his antics. Having said this, I have no doubt in my mind that LDS leaders, including his Bishop and Stake President, would be absolutely appalled by what he has done on this forum. I also have no doubt that the folks at NAMI would feel the same, Will's insinuations to the contrary notwithstanding.
To be honest I was never particularly interested in Will's nasty comments towards others, and most of this stuff I never read until it was later brought to my attention. I tend to focus more on the dishonest nature of Will's character as it pertains to his fumbling attempts to get a stranglehold on Book of Abraham matters. I'll continue to expose his dishonesty along those lines.
Jack's thread offers a nasty chapter in the long saga of failed Book of Abraham apologetics. Not only are their arguments desperate, fumbled and incoherent, but their chosen spokesperson turns out to be not only dishonest in his apologetics, but also a vile character who takes pride in his bigotry towards women and disaffected members.
Of course we can always expect the fringe lunatics like droopy, wade (and Will's various sock puppets) to dismiss all Will has done and try to paint him as some kind of victim (i.e. "lynching" as wade puts it) but we can also expect on the more serious posters to see past apologetic and tribal tendencies and denounce his actions as unbecoming of a priesthood holder.
Kevin Graham wrote: And what the hell do you think you have offered if not hearsay evidence, wade?
Where, in your convoluted mind did you imagine that I had intended to offer evidence--hearsay or otherwise?
Were you capable of anything beyond a banal knee-jerk reaction, you might have rightly descerned that my comments were clearly intended only to correct and educate Trevor in his misunderstanding about the rules of evidence. I had no desire, nor did I make any effort, to speak directly to the off-topic issue--in large part because it is off-topic, and I am trying to be more respectful to MsJack's request to keep the thread on-topic. You would have known this had you taken more care in your reading, and seen the two times I explicitly mentioned getting back on topic. Feel free to now crawl back under your rock.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
Kevin Graham wrote:Someone with admitted learning disabilities is ordering a seasoned scholar to "learn"... now that's rich!
But such is the sad state of LDS apologetics. Wade epitomizes everything that is wrong with it, as well as its phoniness.
You know, I am not one to trumpet my few achievements and expect every non-PhD to kowtow to me, but the lack of even minimal credit for my work is something that I find mystifying. I don't care what Wade's issues are, but the guy misreads what I write and then undertakes to correct me on the basis of his faulty reading. That really takes the cake.
Wade is one of those guys who has the audacity to show his face at conferences after making such a fool of himself in threads such as these. There is a reason why he won't answer my question.
wenglund wrote:Were you capable of anything beyond a banal knee-jerk reaction, you might have rightly descerned that my comments were clearly intended only to correct and educate Trevor in his misunderstanding about the rules of evidence.
Wade, if you persist in claiming that I misunderstand the rules of evidence against the evidence that I have provided that clearly demonstrates otherwise, I will be forced to conclude that you are deliberately lying.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”