Re: Quick Poll: Would you trust system software from an anonymous source?

On 11 March 2010 02:10, Dean Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Andrew Edelstein wrote:
>
>> On 3/10/2010 4:06 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
>> > Oh, I agree its hearsay for you to repeat (I'm a direct party). All
>> > third party reports of polls are hearsay. (That's why the judge must ask
>>  > each juror for their vote).  But this list (quite obviously)  isn't a
>>
>> (sigh) And the circular logic is presented. "It's not hearsay because
>> I'm a direct party. It is hearsay for anyone to repeat it. But my
>> 'repetition' is more trustworthy than a jury foreman."
>
> That's not circular logic. Those are the rules for Hearsay testimony.
> You can testify to anything you witnessed, not to things you heard other
> people witness. I witnessed the poll.  You didn't. If you repeat what I
> witnessed, that's hearsay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law

<snip>
A statement will be considered hearsay if it is:

   1. An assertive statement
   2. Made by an out-of-court declarant
   3. Is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.

If a statement is being offered for its truth — meaning that its
relevance depends upon the jury..' ( in this case, us, the list )
.'believing the substance of the statement — then it is being offered
to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.
</snip>

Objection overruled!

I can understand that you are loathe to lose an argument or even take
a small step to the rear, however you are taking this way too
seriously.  I'm not able to any longer..  Do yourself a great favour,
go take a chill pill, go get some fresh air, go unwind on matters
totally unrelated to DNS dishonesty and other forms of heinous
conspiracy,.there's a good chap.  Nashua looks like a good place to
be, and hey, Boston by the sea ain't far! ;o)

http://www.gonashua.com/

Regards,


Chris.

Chris.