The Bob Show

[bobk]

Jonathan?

[NMERider]

Blade Runner 2049 - Just awesome!
Okay, gotta get my gear ready. Saturday looks like a good soaring forecast.

Now read this: http://www.crossexam.com/impeaching-an-expert-witness.html
Bob's highly publicized bias against Torrey, U$HPA and defendant parties was plastered all over the WWW long before the lawsuit was filed.
Bob impeached himself AFAIC and in the process damaged Shannon's case. Just my humble opinion.

Did I mention just how awesome Blade Runner 2049 was?

[bobk]

Jonathan,

Here is the applicable definition of "impeach" from http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/impeach#English

To demonstrate in court that a testimony under oath contradicts another testimony from the same person, usually one taken during deposition.

Now there can also be an interpretation of "Attempting to demonstrate..." as in the site you've quoted. This parallels the usage in the familiar political context:

President Clinton was impeached by the House in November 1999, but since the Senate acquitted him, he was not removed from office.

So it's important to look at the context of the usage. If you meant to say that there was an attempt to discredit me (as there was an attempt to remove Bill Clinton), then you've essentially said nothing. Indeed, with that definition, it could be said that Dennis Pagen was impeached as a witness because there was an attempt to discredit and he had a very clear bias. That's very different from saying that his testimony was proven to be false or incorrect.

It's not credible that you would be saying "Bob, on the other hand was impeached as a witness." with the meaning that there was an attempt to discredit my testimony or that I had a bias. It would not be logically consistent with the rest of your statements. Instead it seems obvious to me that you were asserting that I had made false statements in my testimony ... which I did not.

However, if you would like to stipulate that you were not implying false testimony, then we may be fine if you'll agree for Tad to insert this note immediately after your statement:

Moderator's note: In subsequent discussion, NMERider has clarified this statement to mean that there was an attempt to discredit Bob's testimony, and not that it was actually proven to be false.

That would be fine.

[NMERider]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment
Bob,
Your credibility as a witness was impeached due to bias and undoubtedly other things.
Now go see Blade Runner 2049. You'll be glad you listened to me on at least this.
Cheers,
Jonathan

[Tad Eareckson]

My, my, my. Look at all the sudden interest in the precise use of the English language.

[bobk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment
Bob,
Your credibility as a witness was impeached due to bias and undoubtedly other things.

My credibility and my testimony was and is solid as a rock. You can play word games if you want, but you're only impeaching your own credibility.

You are intentionally trying to mislead people into believing that my testimony was false when it was not. Shame on you.

Furthermore, if my testimony was "impeached" then why was the case settled in Shannon's favor? That's the reality of hard cash that transcends your word games. Or is Tim Herr such an inept attorney that he would throw away USHPA's insurance over an impeached witness?

Words do matter, but the case was settled because the picture of gross negligence became crystal clear. And one picture is worth a thousand words.

[bobk]

My, my, my. Look at all the sudden interest in the precise use of the English language.

There's a saying that if you have to explain a joke, then you haven't told it right.

The meaning of written words is equivalent to the concepts that they convey to those who read them. No more and no less.

The average person reading Jonathan's words will take them to mean that my testimony was dishonest or untrue. I believe that's Jonathan's intention, and that says a lot about him. What you do about it will say a lot about you.

[Steve Davy]

There's a saying that if you have to explain a joke, then you haven't told it right.

My credibility and my testimony was and is solid as a rock.

You told that joke right, Bob.

http://ushawks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=884

[bobk]

There's a saying that if you have to explain a joke, then you haven't told it right.

My credibility and my testimony was and is solid as a rock.

You told that joke right, Bob.

I have to give you credit for putting those lines together. It was very clever. But your cleverness has no bearing on my credibility or the accuracy of my testimony. That's why trials are based on evidence and not on which lawyer tells the funniest jokes. If you want to make a case about my credibility or testimony, please be specific.

I looked through the topic you posted. I didn't read every post. Was there something in particular you wanted to point out?

[Tad Eareckson]

Bob Kuczewski - 2017/10/07 02:45:45 UTC

Indeed, with that definition, it could be said that Dennis Pagen was impeached as a witness because there was an attempt to discredit and he had a very clear bias. That's very different from saying that his testimony was proven to be false or incorrect.

If you want really excellent documentation of Dennis as a liar give the excellent book, Towing Aloft, by Dennis Pagen and Bill Bryden, a good browse sometime.

Bob Kuczewski - 2017/10/07 05:42:15 UTC

There's a saying that if you have to explain a joke, then you haven't told it right.

That saying doesn't account for the possibility of one's audience consisting only of total morons.

The meaning of written words is equivalent to the concepts that they convey to those who read them. No more and no less.

So if you're talking to hang glider people make sure you refer to:
- the force being transmitted by the Dragonfly to the glider through the towline as "pressure"
- a bridle which splits the tow pressure evenly between the pilot and glider as a "three-point bridal"
- anybody stupid enough to use a pilot-only bridal as a "pro"

The average person reading Jonathan's words will take them to mean that my testimony was dishonest or untrue.

Well, Kite Strings isn't intended for the average person. Those douchebags are much better off at The Worlds Largest Hang Gliding Community.

I believe that's Jonathan's intention, and that says a lot about him.

Maybe. But it's a good bet that just about everybody in and/or following this discussion came away with a lot better understanding of the word "impeach".

What you do about it will say a lot about you.

I don't really hafta do anything about it. I provided a fair third party venue for you and Jonathan to engage each other over this issue. You (second person plural) have done that and are welcome to continue.

Bob Kuczewski - 2017/10/07 07:26:48 UTC

That's why trials are based on evidence and not on which lawyer tells the funniest jokes.

Yeah, but the funniest jokes have foundations in truth - most commonly on late-night these days regarding the duplicity of the sociopaths we have in power. And they tend to be really effective in cutting through to truths way ahead of the audience curve. And if you take issue with that position please post us a link to something from the Trump Camp comparable to what Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Trevor Noah are doing.

If you want to make a case about my credibility or testimony, please be specific.

We didn't see your testimony on the Shannon incident. But if it was limited to the incident and relevant stuff like the prequel radio controlled crash into the parked hang gliders the previous year I don't see why it needed much credible testimony. Can't see how a decision could've been anything other than, "Well, DUH!"

But if you want anything regarding your overall credibility there's certainly no shortage of it with San Diego City Council and the Brad/Zack-Max/Alec flights child endangerment pure unadulterated bullshit.

I've dealt with it before and whenever you're cornered you ignore and/or disappear from the discussion.

I looked through the topic you posted. I didn't read every post. Was there something in particular you wanted to point out?

How 'bout Auschwitz? Anything in particular?