Book 2 – Text Updates 052

[zilfallon]

Really, Oberon? Really? NONE of this supports your position because Parson is not the orginal source, the CONVERSATION ITSELF is.

Right then. In any discussion where you get to make up your own definitions, you win by default. WTF does "the CONVERSATION ITSELF is" mean, anyway? Is the CONVERSATION a witness to an event? Seriously, please get the CONVERSATION to tell us what happened during Parson's discussion with Charlie. I'll wait over here.

Parson was there, thus his relation of the conversation is a first hand relation. Did you bother to read the many definitions I provided? You can claim that Parson is lying, summarizing, mistaken, whatever you like. You cannot claim that Parson isn't a first hand source of information for a conversation where he was present. Oh, wait. You just did. I'll amend that: Only a person who either did not read or did not understand the many dictionary definitions of "first hand" posted previously would be so foolish as to continue to make that claim.

*sigh* Back to the ignore list for you, Oberon.

"back" to the ignore list?

Weren't you already ignoring him when you said "conversation itself is the original source" after all these definitions of "first hand" he provided?

[drachefly]

The strict definition of 'first-hand' was tangential to the overall point: this account, 'first-hand' or not, could not be counted on to be comprehensive. The large-text claim was the real point, from which the definition of 'first-hand' is a distraction.

That Ryan dug in his heels on the definition of 'first-hand' is a bit silly, but understandable in those circumstances.

[Oberon]

The strict definition of 'first-hand' was tangential to the overall point: this account, 'first-hand' or not, could not be counted on to be comprehensive.

This is the same issue that cops and lawyers face when questioning witnesses. But regardless of that challenge, this is the only first hand testimony. Second hand testimony is typically not allowed as it is simply hearsay. As I said, there are many approaches open to a person if they choose not to believe what Parson said for whatever reasons. One of those is not inventing a new and false definition for the term "first hand." I don't mind being ignored by someone who needs to alter the language in order to make a point. I would only wonder why they would ever have toggled ignore off after having once set it. Was I in "time out?"