Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:16:53 12/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 1999 at 13:34:02, Dennis Lothspeich wrote: >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. :-) As a lawyer, you would appreciate something I heard on Paul Harvey the other day. Seems that a new attorney was doing lots of advertising explaining that she was a family-law attorney. The reason she was advertising so much as that in the local Bell Yellow Pages, her attorney name/number was listed under "reptiles". :) This was somewhere in California, maybe San Francisco, etc.
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.