angel story video form

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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 .

but thanks for trying to use big boy logic, don't give up and do try again. next time google it before you submit your answer.

Take your own advice 

what's funny is that if someone is confident in something they are saying that you can not understand or comprehend, it is usually because the subject matter is simply beyond your comprehension. What's so funny is you think your understanding of the world is complete, and will not consider the idea that you live in near darkness.

sorry sport it is not hearsay when it comes from the eye witness/1st person perspective.

hear say is when a friend of a friend told me what he saw.

that's not what is happening here. i in the first person and telling you what i saw and heard. so... not hear say. 

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 .

[The Architect Of Fate]

again sport it does not matter what you think about eye witness testimony.

It's no his opinion it's well established fact it's not reliable 

 it is still a valid form of evidence, so much so we take human life on the word of the eye witness. 

Nope it's not and decades of research has shown this despite the justice systems woeful lagging on the matter .That has lead to tons of innocent people suffering and guilty people walking free .So using the outdated justice system as your back up fails .But hell even granting you this the legal system has methods of filtering eye witness testimony(outdated as they are ) for fish tales .So if you want to use the law as your backing maybe see how you story would fit in a legal framework.(my prediction is it would fail )

there is no greater measure against your objection for what other form of evidence THAT COULD APPLY HERE that would trump what an first hand eye witness reported?

Not his problem .You have presented a story you can't back with anything other then your say so . It's not his job to present evidence or a methodology that debunks it nor is his lack of doing so make your antidote anymore then that .

---

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.

Also interesting that he's willing except the een but not religious details as valid

[Paleophyte]

HEY STOOP-ED IT's Already in the BIBLE!!! OTHERS HAVE GONE THROUGH SIMILAR EXPERIENCES I WENT THOUGH!!!! How stoop-ed are you to keep arguing this point?!?!?

Your fairytale agrees with the mythology you grew up in. Underwhelming.

You're as boring as your videos Drich. No capacity to think about what you're saying. You just regurgitate the same old tired tripe and then get really surprised when nobody's impressed.

[The Architect Of Fate]

HEY STOOP-ED IT's Already in the BIBLE!!! OTHERS HAVE GONE THROUGH SIMILAR EXPERIENCES I WENT THOUGH!!!! How stoop-ed are you to keep arguing this point?!?!?

Your fairytale agrees with the mythology you grew up in. Underwhelming.

You're as boring as your videos Drich. No capacity to think about what you're saying. You just regurgitate the same old tired tripe and then get really surprised when nobody's impressed.

Other people having a similar experience doesn't mean dick .Let alone poof of god .

[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.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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

---

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.

1.This doesn't refute my use of the word 

2. I acknowledge yours was a valid definition .But so is mine .So this doesn't help you 

3. Lastly none of this matter because as i pointed out in my original comment even if it wasn't hearsay it's still just  an anecdote

4.The fact you gone to such lengths to try and" OWN" me on such minor point i was willing to concede on is a testament to your pettiness  

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.

Nobody because i have not lied . Yup i took one sentence i believe sums up  the whole paragraph and labelled it fallacious and in my opinion  found nothing else in the paragraph that went against that assessment . You are free to disagree or believe this to be wrong but the charge of intentional dishonesty is in error i'm afraid .But i imagine you will see it as such regardless .

[Nay_Sayer]

@Drich

[The Grand Nudger]

I've got a q for you Drich. What is it that you find so difficult about the nature of your very own beliefs that you feel compelled to argue with yourself and all of existence?

So what, if your silly religion is such and such, or so and so? You still think it's true. There's no need to argue that it isn't what it is, because it's not as if any of that would change your beliefs anyway. Nor...for that matter, would any amount of arguing that your religion isn't what it is change someone else's appraisal of it.

[Drich]

again sport it does not matter what you think about eye witness testimony.

It's no his opinion it's well established fact it's not reliable.
Not not matter how reliable eyewitness testimony is, it still can convict a man to death or exonerate him to live. which makes your assessment on the unreliability of eye witness testimony moot. So i shall repeat in terms a 5th grader could understand so pay attention.

BEcause of the trust the US government moreover the judicial system has in eye witness testimony, in that it give the power of life and death to eyewitness testimony sometimes alone your personal or even factually established feeling on the subject matter are moot/don't mean anything. as the government still places high enough value on eyewitness testimony to execute a human life or exonerate it.

Certainly then if life or death can be discerned from eye witness testimony then it is also good enough to share what happens when you A.S.K. for God as instructed. As my events are not unique they are promised to all of us at one degree or another. My testimony only serves to say God has a testimony set aside for you as well.

 it is still a valid form of evidence, so much so we take human life on the word of the eye witness. 

Nope it's not and decades of research has shown this despite the justice systems woeful lagging on the matter .That has lead to tons of innocent people suffering and guilty people walking free .So using the outdated justice system as your back up fails .But hell even granting you this the legal system has methods of filtering eye witness testimony(outdated as they are ) for fish tales .So if you want to use the law as your backing maybe see how you story would fit in a legal framework.(my prediction is it would fail )

again despite what you personally feel here are couple of examples of eyewitness testimony ability to ensure a conviction or even exonerate. there are even examples where DNA convicts, but eyewitnesses place the suspect out of the realm of possible suspects.

clearwatercriminallawyer.net/florida-court-of-appeals-affirms-eyewitness-testimony-is-sufficient-evidence-to-support-a-conviction-for-a-crime/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...you-think/

I all comes down to how it is collected and the circumstance/stress.

there is no greater measure against your objection for what other form of evidence THAT COULD APPLY HERE that would trump what an first hand eye witness reported?

Not his problem .[/quote] kinda is.. I presented a eyewitness account and you have no way of refuting it. I can confirm my end by the mere fact this to again one degree or another is offer to everyone. If you follow God instructions.

You have presented a story you can't back with anything other then your say so .

not true. I have mine and a billion or so others have theirs.
To which the same sort of experience is offered to you.
remember only 4% of you claim there is nothing.

It's not his job to present evidence or a methodology that debunks it nor is his lack of doing so make your antidote anymore then that .

kinda is if your/he is going to call me a liar. such a charge demands proof.

---

Also interesting that he's willing except the een but not religious details as valid

you guys are making up your own version of what you think i would say. I have said 10 times now I believe what others have seen, i just do not believe it is all from God as God is not the only being able to approach someone in a supernatural way.