Author: Dennis Lothspeich
Date: 10:34:02 12/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 1999 at 12:20:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 17, 1999 at 06:04:27, robert michelena wrote: > >>Jerome, as a third year law student, I was only pointing out what to me is self >>evident; these assertions that the player on the other end of the internet >>connection used brain power to defeat a program would not be admissible in any >>court of law as valid evidence. We call it hearsay. > >BTW, if you continue to use that definition of hearsay, you won't pass your >BAR. If you ask _me_ on a witness stand whether _I_ have beaten a commercial >program at 40/2, and I say "yes" that is _not_ hearsay. That is direct >testimony. Hearsy would be if I responded "I haven't, but my friend told me >that he had." > I can confirm, as an attorney who has passed the Bar and been practicing for many years, that Dr. Hyatt is correct. :-)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.