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

Anyway, I pretty much wasted yesterday talking with trolls like Chris,
and I have some work to do.

Kevin Day:  I'll think about what you wrote, but I suggest you get with
your other authors and consider withdrawing your paper, as it is clearly
incorrect on closing the "birthday attack window", and by being taken in
by Kaminsky with his "roulette logic" and the other scam.  Possibly,
after removing these discredited references, it is still a good paper on
cache poisoning, but I'd have to see what it looks like after taking out
the references to "Kaminsky-class" cache poisoning, and the Kaminsky
non-discovery. That is plagarism because Kaminsky didn't discover that.


Chris:

And yet, you still promote false statements about Hearsay.

Anything you read in the newspaper is hearsay for you.  The reporter
could testify, but you can't.  My report of the results I received in
the Poll is not hearsay. I can go to court and report the Poll.  But if
/you/ go to court and repeat /my/ report of the Poll results, then it
/is/ hearsay. You cannot go to court and report the results of this poll
or any poll you didn't conduct. But the person who conducted it, can.

But since this list isn't a forum that rejects hearsay evidence, there
is no relevance to your argument.  We take newspaper reports, here.

		--Dean

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Chris Pugh wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 256 5494