(March 8, 2019 at 10:42 am)Jehanne Wrote:(March 7, 2019 at 5:23 pm)Drich Wrote: what a simpleton.. Do I need to explain to you how reference material works??? When I quote another or leave their work or alink to their work it is not my education nor ablity that is in question. My role in this is but to sum up and present the work of other 'smarter men' in such a way that you all can not only understand it but phrase and produce it in such away as to illicit a response.. In a sense I am but a conduit putting a person before often times indisputable fact. now if you question the fact or youwant to argue the facts then you address the person who I have often time quoted.
No "smarter men" (or, women, for that matter), agree with you. If so, name one, and we'll discuss that person's credentials.
Again they come in the way of points of reference or links I leave after a statement or point. like in our last discussion I reference the oxford school of law to quote them as having said "Eye witness testimony is extremely important in todays courtrooms" I even pointed out this was a feb of 2018 paper.
So argue that or discuss how it is currently ranked 2019 Number 1 school of law in the world.
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Law,_University_of_Oxford][/url]Faculty of Law, University of Oxford - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_of_Law,_University_of_Oxford
The Faculty of Law, Oxford is the law school of the University of Oxford which has a history of over 800 years of teaching and writing law. ... It is currently ranked first in the world in the 2019 Times Higher Education World University Rankings.
Then lets go back to your statement that dismisses all eyewitness testimony!
Where is the scholarship behind your statement? have none Then let's discuss your qualifications let's discuss your degrees.. have none? then who the F do you think you are disagreeing with me and my supported statements? Again OXford school of law says eyewitness testimonies are critical in todays court rooms and you said no.. then have the nuts to tell me my views are not main stream? where do you get this idea? from your peers from other atheist who want to ignore eye witness testimony as a legit source of evidence? to you is that mainstream?
dumb ass people like you only repersent maybe 20% of thereal world.. that means your understanding of eye witness testimony is the non mainstream view. rather you want to pick and choose to the point Noneof you can even tell me what the evidence you want so badly even looks like. (whinny bitches: well drich it is not our job to produce blabbedy blabbedy yackety smacketty) Hey Whinney if you don't know what said evidence is supposed to look like then how will you know to accept once you see it??? Or is that the whole game? NOTHING is evidence!
