Buyer Beware: Frank Babuska Sr

If the rod doesn't fit, you must acquit.

 

She'll stretch.

 

And the crack in the frame (did he ever go back and take a look at that to verify?) I guess one could argue that the crack is less malicious though.

 

Hmmm.....

 

Is mj on this site? Or is he just gonna talk with melk in person?

 

Well expect to be asked for one more often now. I sure as hell would if I was having a motor built, even if the builder had a spotless history and came highly recommended. You know possible caste system and all. I would hope a reputable builder wouldn't take offense to being asked either. Kind of protects them too.

 

Now the time he called is being pulled into talks?

Again, fuck me out of 12k and Ill show up with fucking spot lights and bull horns at 3 in the morning to get somebody the fuck up if I had to.

 

Because, Gro... er, Broome.

 

With your leave, if I may be allowed to expand upon that....

Hearsay: a statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

Elements:
(1) out of court statement;
(2) offered in court;
(3) to prove the truth of the matter asserted (in the statement).

In any proceeding, the decision-maker’s role (usually a judge or, here, the Beebs) is that of "gatekeeper" to ensure that submitted evidence is reliable and relevant to the issues at hand. Thus, it’s the job of the decision-maker in a proceeding (here, the WERA Court of Public Opinion ("WCOPO", a.k.a "Internet Lynch Mob") to determine whether evidence offered as proof is credible.

There are three evidentiary rules that help the decision-maker reach this determination:
(1) Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful.
(2) The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand.
(3) The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify.

In keeping with these three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court are generally not made under oath, the decision-maker cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine the declarant (the person who made the statement).

Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the decision-maker to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy.

Here, Greg has no first-hand experience with person Y as a cheat and, therefore, he has no relevant information to offer. However, Greg is offering someone else’s statement (person X emailed me and said he has first-hand knowledge that person Y cheated him/her) as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted (Y is a cheat).

Applying the three evidentiary requirements:

(1) Greg has affirm to the WERA Court of Public Opinion that his testimony will be truthful. However, person X, who emailed Greg, has not affirm to the WERA Court of Public Opinion that their testimony will be truthful

(2) Greg has personally appeared here on the Beebs to allow the WERA Court of Public Opinion to observe his testimony firsthand. However, Person X has not appeared here on the BBS to allow the WERA Court of Public Opinion to observe his/her testimony firsthand.

(3) Greg has been subject to (intense) cross-examination by the WERA Court of Public Opinion. Whereas, because they have not appeared here on the BBS, person X cannot be subject to the cross-examination.

Thus, Person X’s statements, which are being offered through Greg to prove that Y is a cheat, are hearsay and not reliable because they cannot be scrutinized (either by first-hand observation or cross-examination of the statements) by the Beebs.

In our next class, we will cover can all twenty-three (23) exceptions to the Hearsay Rule....
.
.

 

Thankfully I'm not in the engine building business anymore, but I would never be offended, and I wouldn't expect to be asked more often either. Most racers don't know it exists. Every engine I built had one, it just wasn't common for customers to ask for one.

 

Stand by with that thought.....

 

This should be good.