Is Patsy Ramsey losing her battle with ovarian cancer
- Thread starter mysteriew
- Start date
- Status
Moab
Member
You have it down to 8 minutes!
:loser:
Jayelles
New Member
Rainsong still hasn't said whether her answer to my simple boolean question is a yes or a no.
An inability to answer questions and to follow arguments through to their conclusion is something I penalise candidates heavily for when I am marking assignments and university level exam papers.
I haven't seen the who's on first thing but I believe it is a famous sketch and was referred to in some film (was it Rainman?). I'm guessing it was a sketch which poked fun at some "unproductive" scenario? I sometimes find myself having discussions with a certain RSTer which are reminiscent of the "Remind me of a man" dialogue. They just go around in an endless circle.
An inability to answer questions and to follow arguments through to their conclusion is something I penalise candidates heavily for when I am marking assignments and university level exam papers.
I haven't seen the who's on first thing but I believe it is a famous sketch and was referred to in some film (was it Rainman?). I'm guessing it was a sketch which poked fun at some "unproductive" scenario? I sometimes find myself having discussions with a certain RSTer which are reminiscent of the "Remind me of a man" dialogue. They just go around in an endless circle.
Jayelles
New Member
From reading the texts, it is apparent that the BPD tended to consult moe than one expert regarding much of the evidence. I don't necessarily perceive this to be them "not liking" the opinions. I think it was prudent not to take the word of one expert as gospel. "Shopping around" might be the way some people would describe "doing the research". When I am writing subject materials, I read and compare several (and sometimes numerous) texts. My comfort zone is when I find a commonality between them.tipper said:
Robert Stratbucker also disagrees with the marks being made by a stungun and he is much more of an expert in this area than Spitz. When weighing up the testimony of the experts, we need to remember that of the three whose opinion is on record (Doberson, Stratbucker and Spitz), Stratucker is the most distinguished in the field of stunguns. He has been studying the effects of them for decades and as a result of this, he is recognised as an expert witness in several states. He has conducted most experiments, written most papers and been most quoted.
IN comparison to Stratbucker, Doberson is a bit of a novice on the subject of stunguns and we mustn't forget that he was so inexperienced that he failed to identify multiple stungun marks in the case of Gerald Boggs. Since they cannot fault Stratbucker's impeccable record of expertise on the subject of stunguns, the RST have to resort to attacking his professionalism since, as a result of his expertise, Stratbucker was hired as a consultant by Taser. In his deposition, Lin Wood prevented Stratbucker from explaining WHY he did not think the marks were made by a stungun. Instead, he focused excessively on Stratbucker's ties to Taser in an effort to invalidate Stratbucker's opinion on the basis of conflict of interests.
Jayelles said:
The difficulty lies in the 'boolean' form since the question is based on an inaccurate assumption. For example: Do you still beat your husband?
Follow my responses and you should be able to figure out why a yes or no answer cannot be given.
Rainsong
Jayelles
New Member
Strangely enough, the question of whether you beat your husband does not come into it - although it's certainly the most original sidestep of the discussion....Rainsong said:
A yes or no answer can certainly be given. Either you DO require scientific confirmation of the "stungun" marks (and we know that this would require exhumation and tissue testing) ... or you don't.
Moab
Member
Here Jayelles, go to this link and you can read the the dialogue to "Who's on First", and they also have a link to an audio version!Jayelles said:
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor4.shtml
Jayelles
New Member
That is brilliant! I'm ROFL here. It's not what I expected but it's very very clever. I'm not surprised that it's a classic. I need to e-mail this to my Hubby. He'd enjoy it too.Moab said:
Jayelles said:
Since I never said I required scientific confirmation, your question is based on an incorrect assumption. Therefore, it cannot be answered with a yes or no.
Perhaps you missed the discussion on the meaning of the word, rather--as in making a choice. I would rather as opposed to I require.
But I do appreciate the look at the workings of your thought process.
Rainsong
Moab
Member
Well okay then RS...let's simplify this and I will try not to go over 4 syllables so you can clearly understand the yes/no question connotation.
1. Do you require scientific confirmation...yes/no?
or
2. Do you concede it is pineapple...yes/no?
1. Do you require scientific confirmation...yes/no?
or
2. Do you concede it is pineapple...yes/no?
Rainsong,
After reading all your (non??) answers to questions, I have to say you remind me of President Clinton when he was asked certain questions in regard to Monica. His answers were similar. One of which was (and I'm paraphrasing here), " It all depends on what the meaning of is is.
After reading all your (non??) answers to questions, I have to say you remind me of President Clinton when he was asked certain questions in regard to Monica. His answers were similar. One of which was (and I'm paraphrasing here), " It all depends on what the meaning of is is.
Voice of Reason
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 10
As an aside, "expert shopping" is quite common. Personally, I would prefer someone to consult an expert and not use their opinion if they don't like it as opposed to consulting an expert and asking them if they can come out a certain way. While both have their ethical problems, I prefer the former method of "expert shopping" and most lawyers don't see anything wrong with it. Don't forget there are many experts out there, and they often disagree. Are you to drop your case because one expert has a different opinion, especially if there are others who support your case?
Moab
Member
Good catch skybluepink....
Patsy also chooses her words carefully...
9 THE WITNESS: I mean, I think, I
10 think I was told, probably, you know, this
11 name, this name, and this is who he is and
12 that is and that is. They are all like
13 names with degrees this long. I just knew I
14 was very impressed by the caliber of the
15 individuals consulting on this
From the Ransom Note:
" Mr. Ramsey, We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction."
skybluepink said:
Patsy also chooses her words carefully...
9 THE WITNESS: I mean, I think, I
10 think I was told, probably, you know, this
11 name, this name, and this is who he is and
12 that is and that is. They are all like
13 names with degrees this long. I just knew I
14 was very impressed by the caliber of the
15 individuals consulting on this
From the Ransom Note:
" Mr. Ramsey, We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction."
Seeker
Former Member
Post 126
Hmm, yes, the quote is from the autopsy report and that is exactly why I quoted it--so there would be no mistake about what Dr. Meyer stated. Please note his choide of words--"which may represent". In no way did I suggest the pathologist failed to examine the food remnants. I am saying he did not determine it was pineapple since that is not his area of expertise. Steve Thomas' words have been disproven many times, so yes, I question the veracity of any of his comments in reference to food remnants.
Post 138
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying Meyer used the word 'may' be remnants of pineapple because his education was not in the field of botany. Had this case ever gone to court, the prosecution would have to show, by use of an expert in the field, whether or not the remnants were actually pineapple.(that is a very ignorant and uneducated statement. Explination of this fact below.) Meyer would have been able to testify as to what it 'may' have been, but not that it 'was' pineapple.
My analogies may not suit your taste, but they suit my purposes.
(Another uneducated comment proving the posts are only for the purpose of arguing without proper knowledge or the ability to admit when one is wrong and making things up to support an unsupportable position. Botanists do not study digested vegetable matter. Period. They study living plants only. They would never be involved in an autopsy to identify remnants of digested material. A biologist would be the person who would study such things, not a botanist. http://www.botany.org/)
Post 145
We do not have confirmation from someone who actually examined the remnants and who is qualified in the field of identifying vegetable matter, and since it has been shown several times that Steve Thomas' statements were not always accurate, I'd rather wait for such confirmation.
Post 149
I mentioned Steve Thomas because his word is the only word in regard to the pineapple as noted in my post to Voice of Reason.
Post 155
As I said, all we have is Steve Thomas' word.
Post 159 (in reponse to tipper mentioning Lou Smit asking Patsy about the pinapple)
Oh, I believe it was pineapple too, but I'm not willing to accept Steve Thomas' word for it. I'd still like confirmation.
Post 166
I'd like confirmation, not from LE but from some scientific entity. (Yet another uneducated and ignorant comment. Pathologists fall under the "scientific entity" area.)
Post 195
I have not 'demanded' anything. All I ever stated was Meyer wrote in the autopsy report that the remnants 'may' represent pineapple and the only proof we have it is pineapple is Steve Thomas' word. I also stated that for this to be accepted as pineapple in a court of law, the prosecution would have to have an expert opinion on the matter rather than Meyer's statement that it 'may' be pineapple.
(Without a completed analyzation no-one could say with any certainty at the time of the autopsy that it "was" pinapple as is being constantly backpeddaled in these referenced posts.)
Post 199
I did not miss the quote from Lou Smit and addressed it in an earlier post. (This not true as anyone can see from the cited references that the poster NEVER mentioned Lou Smit.)
Post 204
Because while Lou Smit may very well be a fine detective, his say-so as a member of the prosecution's team, cannot be taken at face value--by me or by a court of law. IF this case would ever go to court, the experts who identified the remnants as pineapple would be called to testify on this, not Lou Smit nor Steve Thomas.
(again someone fails to grasp that what was found in her system would not be addressed in a court of law. The only thing it would be addressed as is food found to estimate time of death. It doesn't matter what it was.)
Hmm, yes, the quote is from the autopsy report and that is exactly why I quoted it--so there would be no mistake about what Dr. Meyer stated. Please note his choide of words--"which may represent". In no way did I suggest the pathologist failed to examine the food remnants. I am saying he did not determine it was pineapple since that is not his area of expertise. Steve Thomas' words have been disproven many times, so yes, I question the veracity of any of his comments in reference to food remnants.
Post 138
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying Meyer used the word 'may' be remnants of pineapple because his education was not in the field of botany. Had this case ever gone to court, the prosecution would have to show, by use of an expert in the field, whether or not the remnants were actually pineapple.(that is a very ignorant and uneducated statement. Explination of this fact below.) Meyer would have been able to testify as to what it 'may' have been, but not that it 'was' pineapple.
My analogies may not suit your taste, but they suit my purposes.
(Another uneducated comment proving the posts are only for the purpose of arguing without proper knowledge or the ability to admit when one is wrong and making things up to support an unsupportable position. Botanists do not study digested vegetable matter. Period. They study living plants only. They would never be involved in an autopsy to identify remnants of digested material. A biologist would be the person who would study such things, not a botanist. http://www.botany.org/)
Post 145
We do not have confirmation from someone who actually examined the remnants and who is qualified in the field of identifying vegetable matter, and since it has been shown several times that Steve Thomas' statements were not always accurate, I'd rather wait for such confirmation.
Post 149
I mentioned Steve Thomas because his word is the only word in regard to the pineapple as noted in my post to Voice of Reason.
Post 155
As I said, all we have is Steve Thomas' word.
Post 159 (in reponse to tipper mentioning Lou Smit asking Patsy about the pinapple)
Oh, I believe it was pineapple too, but I'm not willing to accept Steve Thomas' word for it. I'd still like confirmation.
Post 166
I'd like confirmation, not from LE but from some scientific entity. (Yet another uneducated and ignorant comment. Pathologists fall under the "scientific entity" area.)
Post 195
I have not 'demanded' anything. All I ever stated was Meyer wrote in the autopsy report that the remnants 'may' represent pineapple and the only proof we have it is pineapple is Steve Thomas' word. I also stated that for this to be accepted as pineapple in a court of law, the prosecution would have to have an expert opinion on the matter rather than Meyer's statement that it 'may' be pineapple.
(Without a completed analyzation no-one could say with any certainty at the time of the autopsy that it "was" pinapple as is being constantly backpeddaled in these referenced posts.)
Post 199
I did not miss the quote from Lou Smit and addressed it in an earlier post. (This not true as anyone can see from the cited references that the poster NEVER mentioned Lou Smit.)
Post 204
Because while Lou Smit may very well be a fine detective, his say-so as a member of the prosecution's team, cannot be taken at face value--by me or by a court of law. IF this case would ever go to court, the experts who identified the remnants as pineapple would be called to testify on this, not Lou Smit nor Steve Thomas.
(again someone fails to grasp that what was found in her system would not be addressed in a court of law. The only thing it would be addressed as is food found to estimate time of death. It doesn't matter what it was.)
Moab
Member
Seeker...
I would have bought you a beer for that post, but ya'll don't have any drinking smilies...are ya all tea totalers here? Well, except for the Chardonnay person, of course...
I would have bought you a beer for that post, but ya'll don't have any drinking smilies...are ya all tea totalers here? Well, except for the Chardonnay person, of course...
Jayelles
New Member
Yet another sidestep in order to avoid answering a simple yes or no question.Rainsong said:
My "thought process"? Do you understand what is meant by that phrase or could we have a 4 day debate about that too?
***********
The centipede was happy (quite)
Until the vole in fun,
Said "Which leg comes after which?"
She worked herself to such a pitch,
She lay demented in a ditch
- wondering how to run.
tipper
Former Member
Please don't.Jayelles said:
Following a complaint, I am locking this thread.
It was my intention to move Rainsong's somewhat unproductive semantic "debate" to the Parking Lot but the logistics of doing so without disrupting the general flow of discussion forced a rethink.
If Rainsong or anyone else wishes to respond to any of the posts here then please do so on the thread named Rainsong's Thread at the Parking Lot.
It was my intention to move Rainsong's somewhat unproductive semantic "debate" to the Parking Lot but the logistics of doing so without disrupting the general flow of discussion forced a rethink.
If Rainsong or anyone else wishes to respond to any of the posts here then please do so on the thread named Rainsong's Thread at the Parking Lot.
- Status