Re: The Bob Show
Posted: 2017/10/06 22:50:54 UTC
bobk wrote:Jonathan?
A forum devoted to the scientific advancement of hang gliding
http://www.kitestrings.org/
bobk wrote:Jonathan?
Now there can also be an interpretation of "Attempting to demonstrate..." as in the site you've quoted. This parallels the usage in the familiar political context:To demonstrate in court that a testimony under oath contradicts another testimony from the same person, usually one taken during deposition.
So it's important to look at the context of the usage. If you meant to say that there was an attempt to discredit me (as there was an attempt to remove Bill Clinton), then you've essentially said nothing. Indeed, with that definition, it could be said that Dennis Pagen was impeached as a witness because there was an attempt to discredit and he had a very clear bias. That's very different from saying that his testimony was proven to be false or incorrect.President Clinton was impeached by the House in November 1999, but since the Senate acquitted him, he was not removed from office.
That would be fine.Moderator's note: In subsequent discussion, NMERider has clarified this statement to mean that there was an attempt to discredit Bob's testimony, and not that it was actually proven to be false.
My credibility and my testimony was and is solid as a rock. You can play word games if you want, but you're only impeaching your own credibility.NMERider wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment
Bob,
Your credibility as a witness was impeached due to bias and undoubtedly other things.
There's a saying that if you have to explain a joke, then you haven't told it right.Tad Eareckson wrote:My, my, my. Look at all the sudden interest in the precise use of the English language.
bobk wrote:There's a saying that if you have to explain a joke, then you haven't told it right.
You told that joke right, Bob.bobk wrote:My credibility and my testimony was and is solid as a rock.
I have to give you credit for putting those lines together. It was very clever. But your cleverness has no bearing on my credibility or the accuracy of my testimony. That's why trials are based on evidence and not on which lawyer tells the funniest jokes. If you want to make a case about my credibility or testimony, please be specific.Steve Davy wrote:bobk wrote:There's a saying that if you have to explain a joke, then you haven't told it right.You told that joke right, Bob.bobk wrote:My credibility and my testimony was and is solid as a rock.
If you want really excellent documentation of Dennis as a liar give the excellent book, Towing Aloft, by Dennis Pagen and Bill Bryden, a good browse sometime.Bob Kuczewski - 2017/10/07 02:45:45 UTC
Indeed, with that definition, it could be said that Dennis Pagen was impeached as a witness because there was an attempt to discredit and he had a very clear bias. That's very different from saying that his testimony was proven to be false or incorrect.
That saying doesn't account for the possibility of one's audience consisting only of total morons.Bob Kuczewski - 2017/10/07 05:42:15 UTC
There's a saying that if you have to explain a joke, then you haven't told it right.
So if you're talking to hang glider people make sure you refer to:The meaning of written words is equivalent to the concepts that they convey to those who read them. No more and no less.
Well, Kite Strings isn't intended for the average person. Those douchebags are much better off at The Worlds Largest Hang Gliding Community.The average person reading Jonathan's words will take them to mean that my testimony was dishonest or untrue.
Maybe. But it's a good bet that just about everybody in and/or following this discussion came away with a lot better understanding of the word "impeach".I believe that's Jonathan's intention, and that says a lot about him.
I don't really hafta do anything about it. I provided a fair third party venue for you and Jonathan to engage each other over this issue. You (second person plural) have done that and are welcome to continue.What you do about it will say a lot about you.
Yeah, but the funniest jokes have foundations in truth - most commonly on late-night these days regarding the duplicity of the sociopaths we have in power. And they tend to be really effective in cutting through to truths way ahead of the audience curve. And if you take issue with that position please post us a link to something from the Trump Camp comparable to what Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Trevor Noah are doing.Bob Kuczewski - 2017/10/07 07:26:48 UTC
That's why trials are based on evidence and not on which lawyer tells the funniest jokes.
We didn't see your testimony on the Shannon incident. But if it was limited to the incident and relevant stuff like the prequel radio controlled crash into the parked hang gliders the previous year I don't see why it needed much credible testimony. Can't see how a decision could've been anything other than, "Well, DUH!"If you want to make a case about my credibility or testimony, please be specific.
How 'bout Auschwitz? Anything in particular?I looked through the topic you posted. I didn't read every post. Was there something in particular you wanted to point out?