angel story video form

[Drich]

They don't and didn't..but I don't see the point of speculation anyway.  Plenty of people say that they see and hear shit - and you don't believe their stories of culturally relevant supernatural beasties anymore than I believe in yours.  

Honestly...I'm more inclined to believe that the nutter sees and hears what he says he does, than you.  Those are the fruits of your labor, lol.

We've had this talk about what others see in their religions. I have no doubt others are exposed to supernatural beings. the thing is God is not the only one who speaks with people. It is by the message that you know to whom you speak. I am certain people like Mohammad and joesph smith spoke to their angels. And I am sure of the claim. where we differ is the doctrine given that contradicts scripture.

My point is not what i or others see. my point is this sort of thing has been offered to you

---

actually sport no. when one of you take my story and picks out the details they wish to address and refuses to look at the story as a whole that is the fallacy known as cherry picking 

Nope as a whole or the portion i quoted you story is an argument from ignorance and no cherry picking took place because that portion i quoted pretty much sum up your whole long rambly story .

to whom do you think you are fooling with your lie?
You literally quoted one sentence out of a paragraph. a paragraph which contain things you failed to even attempt to explain. this is the definition of cherry picking sport.

Wrong though that is a definition of hearsay 


hearsay
information you have heard that might or might not be :



hearsay

information that you have heard without having any proof that it is 


Note no mention of first person perspective so it's a valid use , And even if we granted you this congrats you have moved from hearsay to an antidote .Not much of an improvement really .

I know this is the wrong definition of hearsay why would you even post this? someone cut out large chunks of the defination.. did you not think i would notice or that i haven't already looked up this word?

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Dictionary[/color]








hear·say
/ˈhirˌsā/
[/url]Learn to pronounce
[url=https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS743US744&sxsrf=ALeKk03yPxstMfxJ6k39dHzDt1j8wIlYOA:1586182584285&q=how+to+pronounce+hearsay&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOMIfcRoyS3w8sc9YSmDSWtOXmPU4uINKMrPK81LzkwsyczPExLmYglJLcoV4pbi5GLPSE0sKk6stGJRYkrN41nEKpGRX65Qkq9QANSSD9STqgBVAQDYugV0WQAAAA&pron_lang=en&pron_country=us&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwikvfDL_tPoAhXjUd8KHbpkCv0Q3eEDMAB6BAgEEAg]

noun

1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
   "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
   
   Similar:
   rumor
   gossip
   tittle-tattle
   tattle
   idle chatter
   idle talk
   mere talk
   report
   stories
   tales
   tidbits
   bavardage
   on dit
   Kaffeeklatsch
   labrish
   shu-shu
   buzz
   he grapevine
   goss
   scuttlebutt
   furphy
   skinder
   bruit
   Opposite:
   confirmed facts
   • LAW
     the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
     "everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay"
     

Dp you see 'smart' guy? Person number 2 is telling person number 1 story. THAT IS HEARSAY!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
For example, to prove that Tom was in town, the attorney asks a witness, "What did Susan tell you about Tom being in town?" Since the witness's answer will rely on an out-of-court statement that Susan made, if Susan is unavailable for cross-examination, the answer is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not in court and thus is insulated from cross-examination. Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is not trying to prove the truth of the assertion about Tom being in town but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable. For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan because now the witness is asked about the opposing party's statement that constitutes a verbal act.[1][2]

If susan could retell the story herself it would NOT be hearsay.. I'm susan and the op is my story i am here for cross examination therefore not hear say, but eye witness testimony.