Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“If they mutually agree that the marriage is over, then normally your point is correct”
Fantastic then we are in full agreement.
Though this part throws me off and seems to contradict the first point
“Now this point I must take strong exception to. If strictly speaking he’s not halachicly obligated to divorce, as you give in your example, then generally speaking he has no moral, ethical or other imperative to do so even if she wants to divorce.”
To clarify what I meant. I am talking about a case whre the marriage is over. You ask who decides? Whoever you want. I’m not talking about a specific case strictly in the abstract.
If the marriage is over and there a get should be given (barring some exceptional cases)
“My underlying point is that this newfangled idea that if one spouse wants to divorce when the other does not, then the one wanting it generally has the right to it over the objections of the other spouse, is wrongheaded and has no basis in halacha.”
Yes I get that.
My underlying point is that there are other aspects to halacha. You mean in hilchos Gitin there is no basis. There are other halachos Veasisa Hayashr Vehatov is important too.
I don’t intend on this turning into one of my endless debates.
ALL I am saying is that aside for Hilchos Gitin, aa person should be a mentch.
If the marriage is over, (however and whomever you would have define it) to be a mencth a get should be given“If they mutually agree that the marriage is over, then normally your point is correct”
Fantastic then we are in full agreement.
Though this part throws me off and seems to contradict the first point
“Now this point I must take strong exception to. If strictly speaking he’s not halachicly obligated to divorce, as you give in your example, then generally speaking he has no moral, ethical or other imperative to do so even if she wants to divorce.”
To clarify what I meant. I am talking about a case whre the marriage is over. You ask who decides? Whoever you want. I’m not talking about a specific case strictly in the abstract.
If the marriage is over and there a get should be given (barring some exceptional cases)
“My underlying point is that this newfangled idea that if one spouse wants to divorce when the other does not, then the one wanting it generally has the right to it over the objections of the other spouse, is wrongheaded and has no basis in halacha.”
Yes I get that.
My underlying point is that there are other aspects to halacha. You mean in hilchos Gitin there is no basis. There are other halachos Veasisa Hayashr Vehatov is important too.
If they don’t have enough sunscreen absolutely
“But he doesn’t have an obligation to give a Get”
I think a point that gets blurred in these conversations , is although he doesn’t have a halachic obligation, he may have a moral one.
If the marriage is over, certainly if he has moved on and remarried a get should be given in (nearly?) all circumstances.
Is that really a controversial statement?Now granted, he may not be strictly speaking obligated to do so, and pressuring him to do so unwillingly may create a real problem of Get meusah. But that doesn’t change the fact that he is a bad person, who deserves shame .
Imagine a person who literally kept his wife chained in his basement, didn’t let her get out and get sunlight. All would agree that would be crazy, and would support shaming him to free her, even without beis din demanding him to (again a big difference is him freeing her wouldn’t create get meuseh in this scenario) Keeping a woman chained in a dead marriage is not much different than keeping her chained in a basement.
Again, yes we don’t know the facts in all cases, and mob rule can lead to real problems as NOYB pointed out . But in regards to ” can anyone possibly think of a worse thing to encourage than “hey random people, form a mob and go ruin someone’s life based on hearsay”?” Yes I think keeping women stuck in a marriage that is over might be worse, and is definitely more common .
It seems to me that in response to the “feminist bent” (real or perceived) , and perhaps anti-halachic outlook and even practices done by many in a desire to free these women, many in our camp come to view all these Get refusers as tzadikim except in a narrow subset of cases.
I guess my question really is the following
If the marriage is over, certainly if he has moved on and remarried a get SHOULD* be given in (nearly?) all circumstances.(*note should does not equal halachically obligated vis a vis hilchos Gittin in this sentence )
“At what point is someone a “get refuser?””
In what regard?
To allow pressure to be placed to encourage him giving a get? OR in regards to being a jerk?
“say maarovis,”
Oy! what about simchos Yom tov???
Toi
Chovos Hadar in perek 9 footnote 20 says what your saying, it sems it is his own explanantion. He brings the Minchas Elazar (chelek 1 siman 36 who does not say this, rather says that diaganol is considred upright) I heard similar from R’ Reisman that really we hold like Rashi but upright doesnt have to be exactly 90 degrees (compared to ground) at a slight angle is also upright. so we put it at an angle as a “Concession” to Rabbeinu Tam.
At any rate thanks for your point. EVen if strictly speaking it isn’t a “compromise” its close enough that I think your angst about it is misplaced.
Toi
I have never heard it presented that way. It doesnt sound that way from the MEchaber “צְרִיכָה לִהְיוֹת זְקוּפָה” (not that its passul horizontal, but that it has to be vertical) .
Pischei Teshuva “והגר״א זצ״ל בש״ע שלו פסק כרש״י שצריכה להיות זקופה ע״ש וכן הוא בהנהגות שלו”
while your explantion makes a lot of sense, is it your own or have you seen it somewhere?
Thank you
In case you have trouble finding them here are the 2 questions
Both are here to help you correctly understand “lie of fabrication”
There is no need for you to just repeat the same misunderstood quote over and over. I got it.
I’d like to help you.A) One of the sources you provided used “The dog ate my homework” as an example of a “lie of fabrication,” In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
B) the Hopeline 8 types of lies piece has White lies as the first type.
They define it ” A white lie is often called the least serious of all lies. People tell white lies claiming to be tactful or polite. For example, it could be making up an excuse for not going to a party, or showing appreciation for an undesirable gift.”
I was invited to a coworker’s party. I told them “I can’t make it Friday night its the Jewish Sabbath” Is this a White lie?
Ugh
“What’s wrong with that statement?”
It wasn’t true. I did not lie.
If you look at the Your posts before that – you use the word “lying & liar” time after time.
Now you have a problem when s/o says that about you?!?”I have NO problem with you caling me a liar. IF I lied.
At no point did I say “don’t call me a liar it isnt nice” What I’ve been saying is “don;t call me a liar, I told th truth”
Its puzzling that you couldn’t tell that difference .Where did I call you a Liar – post the quote.”
Lots of times.
Are you switching tactics, first you argued for a week or so, that I DID lie becasue there was a “hearing”
Thne you swtichd that although I didnt lie in the typical sense of the word. you used your own defitnion of Liar” that is synonmous with “showing off”
now you are saying you didnt call me a liar.
Love it!
“Are you talking about this?
“On Dec 20’th I said her case won’t be heard by the supreme court.
You said “Ok – she isn’t Lying – You are!”Sure, among others
“If yes, by saying it won’t be heard – this Includes all Definitions, unless you specify which one!”
I don;t know what defitnions you mean.
The court does NOT hear all cases as is clearly written on UScourt dot com website. As Isaid, and as you did not know.
Just becasue you didint knwo that, and wouldnt listen to me is not my fault. Thats on you.“No one is faulting you for that.”
Lol # lines up you did! remeber here it is: “If yes, by saying it won’t be heard – this Includes all Definitions, unless you specify which one! So stop trying to Manipulate e/o, Mr. Compulsive Liar!”
But I faulted you for saying a Lie of Fabrication!
If you forgot the Definition – look up a few lines.“Same for “lie of fabrication”
“by definition, it HAS to be a lie. Otherwise it is not a Lie of fabrication, it isnt a lie at all itfi it isnt a lie.”Ok, here it is again:
So at the time of your post – it was a Lie of Fabrication!”
See the word “Lie”?!?YES! Do you?
Again:
“From Psychology.wikia.com
“Fabrication –
A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.”EXACTLY fabrication is a LIE…
Is it a truth?
NOIt is a lie.
Also still waiting for anwers for my 2 questions
why are you so scared to asnwer simple direct questions ?
Its good for you don;t be shy Lo habayshan lamad.
Do you want to be this uninformed forever? its bad enough to lie, but cmon don;t lie to yourself. Try to learnHealth
I thought of a new approach that might help you.
the Hopeline 8 types of lies peice has White lies as the first type.
They define it ” A white lie is often called the least serious of all lies. People tell white lies claiming to be tactful or polite. For example, it could be making up an excuse for not going to a party, or showing appreciation for an undesirable gift.”
I was invited to a coworker’s party. I told them “I can’t make it Friday night its the Jewish Sabbath” Is this a White lie?
you might say yes! Its “an excuse for not going to a party” However that of course would be wrong. not all excuses not to go to a party are automatically white lies.
To be a white lie it has to be a lie. Whci hshould be obviosu it is in the Category of “types of lies”
of course it has to be a lie.Same for “lie of fabrication”
by definition, it HAS to be a lie. Otherwise it is not a Lie of fabrication, it isnt a lie at all itfi it isnt a lie.Hope this helps
Still waiting for apology and or/ response to my question
“I don’t think other posters will either.”
Lol, there are no other psoters at this point (I hope)
“So as long that there is a correct definition – I can use it.”
You can use whatever definition you want. But you should apologize for having called me a liar, when I was using the correct definition .
On Dec 20’th I said her case won’t be heard by the supreme court.
You said “Ok – she isn’t Lying – You are!”you then went on and on about how conferences are also “hearings” .
(before you came up with “lie of fabrication” )I showed you that you were incorrect. I provided from the court’s website that says clearly “The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. …. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases”
you say you use your own defitnion, fine.
But you can’t fault me for using the Court’s definition.
so I wasn’t lying when I said there wouldn’t be a hearing. There wasn’t.At this point, you can either apologize
Or if you are still caught up on your absurd “lie of fabrication” gibberish., I’m more than happy to help you out , but you are going to have to stop ignoring my questions.“And Btw, it’s defined in many Psychological Sites and/or Texts.”
Yes I know and its copyright to name them.
spare me.(to be clear I’m not saying there is no such thing as a fabrication (that would be absurd) there are lots of tyoes of lies, there are lies of omission, lies of fabrication, lies of denial, bold faced lies. but a. these arent technical terms (to the best of my knowledge) and b. the key is they are LIES ie not true.
Interestingly you have managed to tell ALL these types on this thread)“I guess – that you can’t take a Hint!”
Lol I sure can! You see that your “defitnion makes no sense So are afraid to answer . don;t worry. I got it.
Though I’m not going to just let it go. Cmon’ man we are 249 posts into this nonsense. You think I’m just going to let go another exposure of your nonsensical lies?“You can ask direct questions on my posts!”
sure here is a direct question:
You say I lied, even though I told the truth. You mentioned (after 25 or so posts arguing about the definition of “hearing”) that you are using a special definition of lie that you call “lie of fabrication” To back up this definition , you brought used psychology wikia as a source (As if that trumps any of the numerous dictionary definitions I provided)
Under this defitnion, from the source YOU provided they have an example of a “lie of fabrication” (again, which is what you are accusing me of)
the example is “The dog ate my homework”So I’m trying to understand how you understand the example of the defitnoion you provided
In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
“Not Moshol questions.”
None whatsoever.
“What part of this Definition that you don’t Understand?!?”
2 parts:
The part that would apply that definition to a conference, which is NOT a “proceeding before a court”
and the part that would have that trump The Government’s own website which says EXACTLY as I’ve been telling you .“This question?”
No this one , posed now for the 7th (!!!!) time,:
In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
“From the US courts.gov, that’s talking about SCOTUS is one, ”
Our conversation was about scotus. So any otherdefinition you invent is irrelevant.
You said the conference is a court case. This was wrong.
You were sure of it, you lied you made it up. Some would say this is a “lie of Fabrication”“Why do you make me repeat myself?!”
Please don’t repeat yourself. I replied to your wrong points, again and again and again.
Would love to continue this conversation, but to help you you’ll have to answer my question.
If not, All the best.
See you next time.“I told you quite a few times – they hear every Case!”
Yes you have, but you are wrong on that. (i thought wev’e moved passed this)
The suprme court decides which cases they want to hear .From UScourts .gov
“Writs of Certiorari
Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. …. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value. In fact, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue).”The court does NOT hear al cases. they decide which cases to hear. The ones they decide to hear are granted a writ of Certiorari.
Most cases, including all related to the election are denied, menaing the court declines to hear them.I thought we covered this already.
I know I know your brother’s uncles cousin found some online source that says all cases are heard. You ca find it on Yeshiva worls posted by some guy Health unless it is from an auhtorative source . no reaosn to quote it here.
I quoted from a government run website.“Nothing wrong with making a guess….But there is something Wrong with doing a Lie of Fabrication!”
whats the difference? I don;t follow
“Do you want to make sure that every Single poster can’t take you Seriously anymore?!?”
Its faaaaar too late for that. I’m embarrassed at how long this conversation has gone on.
I’m hoping nobody is even opening this.
Its a problem I have reallyBut once we have come this far I’m curious how many more lies you can come up with.
I find it absolutely amazing.
Also, you quoted my question but haven’t replied.
I’m waiting patiently.
Ive patiently explained to you over and over how the supreme court works, what lie means , fabrication, among some many other bits of information.In return all Iv’e gotten are name calling and ignored question, oh and of course lies, lots and lots of lies.
But don’t you think I at least deserve replies to questions?
No change
it isnt really a thing
But at least follow your own defitnion
“So he’s the only one on the Supreme Court?!? There aren’t 9?!?”
Whose vote, did you wonder about? Kagan? Sotomayor?
And Roberts isn’t just a justice he is the chief. Part of his role is presiding over the conference in which they decide what cases to hear
Did you actually write both of these?!?
absolutly did.
The question is did you really write this “.*.. a lot of people realized that they were delaying the case so they wouldn’t have to get involved.”I don’t get it if you say all those people (” a lot”) just took the same blond guess. even if yo usay the weren’t sure (as if that changes anything) whatever power the used to “realize” what was happening I used the same power
“I could go on & on”
no need
you’ve been posting mostly gibberish this entire thread.One thing that could be interesting though is to reply to my question (posed now for the 6th time:
In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
*edited to remove the lie you had put in there. unlike you I don’t lie even repeating the lie you told makes me uncomfortable
“It became True later on”
so it was true. not a lie.
“It definitely fits.”
eh
“Again, it wasn’t based on any Fact at the time that you posted it!”
It was absolutly based on fact. John roberts has been around for a while. The way he thinks and feels is well known to those who follow.
Again As YOU agreed many knew how they would vote. did they all just have the same “nevuah” of course not.“You made it up, because you Guessed what the SCOTUS would do!”
It wasn’t a blind guess, see above
“So, are you going to admit that you told a “Lie of Fabrication”, ”
no because I didn’t lie AND didn’t fabricate.
you would need both to be correct.
You have neither“Manipulate e/o here?!?”
lol its just us, (and the poor mod forced to read the same thing over and over)
Also I’m not sure if you saw my question I posed 4 times
In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
This is a useful exercise. Since it can help you see one of the 2 mistakes you are making in “lie of fabrication”
“No, actually I quoted from 2 psychological places, & there are more.”
Not quite as pointed out dozens of times. You quoted half , and it still doesnt quite fit .
We went through this already
Here is the defintion you supplied:
“A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.”
Lets go throug it again to see if it fits
“A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, ” – NO my statement wasn’t a lie it was true.
“without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.” This might fit I was as certain as can be, but obviously not 100% in the sense that “anything is possible”
” Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact.” My statement was based on fact.
” Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.”” My statement was not made up.SO even if you think, I was too certain. it STILL is not a lie of fabrication as 3/4 parts of the defitnion doesnt fit.
I’m not sure if you know how defnitions work but the entire definition has to fit.“But you’re welcome to make yourself Foolish!”
Thats been true at least 100 posts ago
Also I’m not sure why you are afraid to answer this question
In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
Bitul?
yes
what if there was a full bug?
Then it wouldn’t be kosher. You probably can get a full refund for the coffee you got with a full roach in it
Yes Health I know its a not a regular definition, and is a defintion you made up (and sort of found a source that part of which kind of sounds like what you claim when taken out of context)
“because eventually they incorporate Subject Meanings into Regular Dictionaries.”
Lol!In your book this is a Lie of fabrication. Even if they do (they won’t), you don’t KNOW that they will.
So do I have it right? Did you just tell a lie of fabrication (regardless of whether it turns is true) ?Also regarding this lie of fabrication, still trying to undertsand fully
in addition to the above
In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
“because even you realized there was something Wrong with your first paragraph!”
not really
If anything it proves the exact oppositeOpinion, was a bad word to use, perhaps prediction would have been better. sorry if it caused any confusion.
I had to spell out for you the difference between fact and opinion. because you have trouble with the 2. for example you think the definition of words like “lie” are subject to opinion.
Most people know when, say the weather person predicts rain tomorrow. He doesnt say “I think” its a prediction. (note : not a fabrication the two are not interchangeable even though he isnt 100% sure of what will happen) .
I’m still working on the “lie of fabrication ” stuff could you help me out
I’m trying to understand your “lie of fabrication” one of your “definitions” used “The Dog ate my homework” as an example. In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
(note: and this is important while these example should help you realize the error of your misinterpretation they are not directly analogous. Mine is more similar to “the dog will eat my homework” but that wasn’t the example, its best if we stick to the example from the source you provided)
“The Very first time you mentioned the word “moot”, is the following on page 3:”
Yes thats true.
and , as mentioned in that same comment, is WHY “They won’t [hear the case] as I’ve been trying to tell you for months. (as in fact happeend)Worth noting, you did not say Oh thats true, or oh that might happen, or “oh but that still counts as a hearing.
You did NONE of those things . You replied with “Look – I told you many times that the Goyishe Prophets predicted Trump will have a 2nd term.”
And later that same day “I have no idea what will come next, but what I know is that you are a Compulsive Liar!”“Why mention “opinion”?”
becasue you have a loose grip on realty. As late as Jan 18 you still had “no idea” who would get sworn in on Jan 20. not “well probably Biden but anything is possible” You had “No idea”and yes, obviously it was an opinion, in case you didn’t realize it I pointed it out
Though doesn’t that make it NOT a “lie of fabrication” using your wrong definition? I pointed out that it was my opinion (albeit one that I was nearly certain about).I’m trying to understand your “lie of fabrication” one of your “definitions” used “The Dog ate my homework” as an example. In which of these scenarios would you say this “lie of fabrication” took place:
1) The guy never did it, teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
2) The guy did do his homework , but can’t find it, he has no idea what happened. teacher asks where is your homework? guy says “The dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it3) The guy did his homework, he sees his dog rummaging in his knapsack and chewing some papers, but doesn’t see which, when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
a. The dog really did eat it
b. the dog did not eat it (eg he finds it later on his desk)4) the guy did his homework, the dog eats it when his teacher asks where is your homework ? he says “the dog ate it”
in which if these 6 cases 1, 2a 2b 3a 3b and 4 would you say a Lie of fabrication took place?
I’ll help you out
1 – YES this is the example they mean, the guy straight out made it up and it was a lie that he fabricated
2a. – No, he didn’t tell a lie
2b. YES although theoretically possible that isn’t what happened it is a lie he fabricated, or a lie of fabrication
3a. No – It was neither a lie nor a fabrication. He had good reason to believe as he did, and it is what happened
3b. No Although it wasn’t true I don’t think it was a “lie” since it wasn’t with malicious intent (though as mentioned this point is debatable) Regardless it certainly wasn’t a fabrication. so even if it was a lie, it wasn’t fabricated
4 – No this is the truth neither a lie nor fabricatonDo you disagree with any of the above?
Next question will be with which was my statement
“There is a zero percent chance that the case will be heard. Zero ” Most similar ?“Definitions are based on the Subject.”
True
and also context“For example, Computer science has a word called Byte.”
Yes this is readily available in any dictionary. Yet mysteriously the defitnion of Lie” that includes truth can’t be found in any dictionary.
and even if there was such a definition (which again there isn’t) we would determine based on context what you meant.
If I said “I’m hungry lets go for a bīt (bite)” nobody would think I wanted more computer storage. Although yes bīt (byte) does mean computer storage (as can be seen in any dictionary no need to dig through the internet for obscure pseudorefrences which we could truncate half of the defitnion out of context) clearly in context thats not what you meant
“I’ve posted this definition already many times!”
yes and EACH time Ive explained to you why you are misunderstanding it.
My “lie of fabrication” was neither a lie nor a fabricationOne of the examples you cite used “My dog ate my homework” as an example of a “lie of fabrication”
Are you saying even if a dog really ate my homework it is a “lie of fabrication” for me to say that?“You keep writing your Nonsense.
Is it because you’re Clueless or keep on Trying to Manipulate E/O?!?”
Neither it is becasue I am a patient teacher, AND becasue Im curious to what extent you will go to rewrite realityHealth
“Definitions are based on the Subject.”
Yes that’s true
Though also context.so for example. If two friends are discussing whether a case will get heard, and one insists it will and the other says “no it will be dismissed as being moot”. first guy says “it will be heard you are a liar”
Clearly he didn’t mean “I’m not sure if it will be heard, and you are telling the truth but you are too sure of yourself”For that person to later claim oh I meant a different definition of “lie” (even if such a defitnion existed) I meant the definition that means being too sure of yourself (!!!!) clearly in context that is NOT what the meant (again even if there was such a definition which of course there isnt)
“For example, Computer science has a word called Byte.”
IT sure does and if you look it up in ANY standard dictionary , you will find it.and lets use this excellent example. If I say “I’m hungry I could go for a bīt (bite)” It would be silly for you to suggest I was asking for computer storage
Even though that IS technically a definition of bīt (byte)
context, my friend“The “Lie of Fabrication” is defined in Psychology, Not in Regular English. I’ve posted this definition already many times!”
yes you have, and as ALL the definitions noted it is a “Type of lie” NOT a type of truth
furthermore as explained It involves a “fabrication” I didn’t fabricate anything, I had good reason to believe as I did
(did you really miss all those times, you never replied to them, you are just repeating the same old nonsense)“You keep writing your Nonsense. Is it because you’re Clueless or keep on Trying to Manipulate E/O?!?”
So its neither,
but I am a patient teacher.See the problem with calling my truthful statement a “Lie of fabrication”
Is that it is NEITHER a lie NOR a fabricationIF ANY point still confuses you let me know which I’m happy to elaborate.
You know I love our conversations, so I hope you don’t take this personally but if you just
“It’s So sad that you’re so used to behavior like this.”
It is sad. But I often wonder if people can change, I wouldn’t say I’m used to it. I am honestly surprised
Sure You’ve been exposed as a liar on multiple threads in the past. But you always had some wiggle room a claim that there is a secret supreme court case out there that even lawyers can’t find or a claim that somewhere there is some secret first aid guide that would be illegal to be cited (!!!) that has your made up EMT guideline.I can’t PROVE that such a book doesn’t exist (though we both know it doesn’t)
But here I can PROVE you wrong
black and white
No wiggle roomThe definition of “liar” is clear I quoted multiple dictionaries
You quoted several sources that didn’t contradict anything I’ve said As explained at length on multiple occasionsI made a prediction
You said I was lying
My prediction came true.
Periodfor most people that would be the end “Wow you were right, I’m sorry I called you a liar”
I did not imagine a person could literally redefine “liar” to avodi the aboveYet here we are. I was wrong.
So while I agree that this discussion and interaction is quite sad.
I do find it absolutely fascinating
Thank you for participating (not being facetious, I really enjoyed your responses thank you for taking the time to write them and thanks mods for your time as well )
“Just because we’re right – Doesn’t mean that your Not a Liar of
Fabrication?!?”Literally means that.
Its in the title
LIAR of fabrication. – See if you can spot the word that excludes truth.
(BTW it wasn’t “fabrication” either since i had reason to think that. One of the definitions you gave that proved you wrong, (thank you for taking the time to provide it) used “the dog ate my homework” as an example. Say the dog was rummaging around in his knapsack chewed up some papers. The boy gets to school looks through the bag finds some half chewed spelling test and homework is missing. Teacher asks “where’s your homework?” The boy says “the dog ate my homework” This isn’t a fabrication at all. This is the likely scenario. (Now it may or may not be true, say he gets home and turns out homework was still on the kitchen table) but clearly not a “fabrication” a fabrication is “it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, ” his assumption WAS based on fact.
Now fabrication is a much harder word to understand than “lie” so if Lie is giving you so much trouble I don’t fully expect you to understand this. but it is worth pointing out. That aside for not having Lied (since I told the truth) It wasn’t a fabrication either (since I had reason to beleive as I did, it WAS based on fact)““The supreme court will dismiss the case as moot”, is saying for Certain!”
Yes becasue I was certain (as near certain as humanly possible for such a prediction)
AND was right.You called me a liar.
Even though I was right
“I realized this …”
Lol
not only didn’t you post “I think a lot of people realized that they were delaying the case so they wouldn’t have to get involved!”
In fact you posted the opposite “Look – I told you many times that the Goyishe Prophets predicted Trump will have a 2nd term. IDK how it will work out, but I don’t count them out – that they aren’t telling the Truth!”and this was on Jan 18th!
you were still giving credence to goyish prophets that Trump would get a second term (starting Jan 20th 2021 clearly in context that is what was being discussed, if you claim you meant 2024 well, look up your 8 types of lies and see if you can figure out which that would be )
you didnt call them liars even though they were certian (and wrong)you also wrote on Jan 18th “I have no idea what will come next,”
whcih is fine. you don’t follow politics so closely, and/or were blinded by love for Trump that you were stil hoping ofr a miracle.
Theres no shame thereI had neither of those problems so I knew what “a lot of people realized ” and CORRECTLY (note: opposite of lie) told you what would happen
No need to do this anymore, and I surely I dont need you to teach me anything
all that’s left is for you to say
“I’m sorry I called you a liar, when you told the truth”nothing new in this last comment
Usually you try to post a new nuance or something
now you’re just repeating untruths that have already been replied to.
what gives?
and besides you are (as you often do) contradicting yourself
you say “No one, even individual Justices could know what the outcome would be.”
yet earlier you said: “.*.. a lot of people realized that they were delaying the case so they wouldn’t have to get involved.”All I did was tell you what you later acknowledged “a lot of people realized”
(*I truncated this sentence because I didn’t want to repeat a lie, the words missing make this true statement untrue)
Health
question:
On another page
someone wrote :
“It was a prediction. You can make that prediction not come true if you so desire.”In your view that person is a “liar”, whether or not his prediction comes true.
correct?(This question belongs on this thread not that, and that thread has some normal comments still, I don’t want to ruin it
and note: in my view it isnt a “lie” in either case if true obviously it isn’t a lie by defitnion, and even if not true , its a prediction one that has reasonable grounding in reality predictions aren’t lies even if they don’t materialize. but as mentioned I suppose this is debatable )
Health
“A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.”
correct
but it is not
A fabrication is a truth told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.and speaking of “forgetting” to quote the whole line
The definition of fabrication (again a type of lie, NOT a type of truth) contiues … ” it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.”
You seem confused as to how defitnions work. you cant just splice out one phrase and if that fits then the definition holds
Lets see how my truthful statement “The supreme court will dismiss the case as moot ” compares to the definition .Here is the entire defitnion:
A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.“A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth,” – No My statement was NOT a lie
” without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. ” – Yes I wasn’t certain it would be correct, though I was close to certain, and by Jan 18 I was near certain
“Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact.” – No my statement was based on fact
” Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.” – No my statement was not a misrepresentation of the truth.So even if the sentence ” without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true” holds up, NONE of the other 3 do.
nah mods
My only point was that what “most Americans” think Is completely irrelevant.
“They don’t have to, but there’s nothing wrong if they do.”
assuming that’s correct.
Its also true that there’s noting wrong if they don’t . Which is what Nadler said .you can of course disagree with him, but your statement “Nadler should never have said what he did!” is puzzling. why shouldn’t he say what he believes
“I take that as a Threat -“it only makes you look worse”.”
You must be redefining “threat”
“A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth.””
Exactly as Ive been telling you “A fabrication is a lie ”
so what is a fabrication?
“A fabrication is a lie ”Oh so if you tell the truth, but are overly confident, is that a fabrication??
No ” A fabrication is a lie ”Thank you for the exceelent source.
while we are quoting excellent sources lets define lie (noun)
vocabulary.com:
“a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth”dictionary.com:
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression;imposture:
His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie:Websters:
1a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer
2: something that misleads or deceives
3: a charge of lyingOxford:
1 an intentionally false statement.
2 used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression.There is simply NO defitnion of “lie” that includes a truthful statement.
“So the fact that it came true, doesn’t mean that you’re Not a Manipulative Liar!”
It means EXACTLY that. Truth is the exact opposite of a lie.
“There are obviously enough people who are willing to and able to pay a huge premium for matzos they like better.”
I am one of those people
It occurred to me that perhaps as a limud achus, maybe there is a hiddur to have tastier matzah?
Based on Rashi Pesachim 99b כדי שיאכל מצה של מצוה לתיאבון משום הידור מצוהand perhaps the Geamra Pesachim 107b* רָבָא הֲוָה שָׁתֵי חַמְרָא כּוּלֵּי מַעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְפִיסְחָא, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּנִיגְרְרֵיהּ לְלִיבֵּיהּ דְּנֵיכוֹל מַצָּה טְפֵי לְאוּרְתָּא
Would you buy such a sevara ?
(* Though I understood peshat there that Rava wanted to eat MORE matzah not necessarily with more of an appetitie.
I wrote a shtickel on this years ago prompted by a disagreement we had, as to whether there was an inyan/mitzva to eat more than a kezayis of Matzah. Some achronim bring a rayah from this Gemara (avnei Nezer) that eating more is a mitzvah though others (moadim uzmanim linjed on that page) say not muchrach)Health
“most Americans don’t feel that way … Nadler should never have said what he did!.”
This is a complete non-sequitur.
Laws, interpretations of laws , interpretation of the constitution, has exactly zero to do with how “most Americans feel”
If you think American law should reflect biblical law or “God’s will” (presumably as defined by you) say so and make the case for the argument
There is no constitutional provision for “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion… unless a PEw research poll shows most Americans want it”
So while interesting. It in no way is related to “Nadler should never have said what he did”
Also
Most does not equal half
The poll you cited does NOT show “most Americans” don’t agree.
In response to the question “The bible should have xxxx influence on laws of U.S. ”preference for “not much /not at all” 50% vs “A great deal/none ” 49%
Part 2
“When I talk to people that just need correcting – I’d talk like that.
When I talk to Ballai Gaiva, it’s more Strong!”Lol
It doesn’t come off strong .It comes of foolish
See because of that absurd assertion
now you have to dig through the internet, misconstrue a type of lie from a non-authorativie website to try to save face.
and it only makes you look worse(not that this absurd conversation reflects to great on me either…)
a more normal approach would have been to be clear from the get go.Also why don’t you give me the benefit of the doubt.
when you said something untrue I didn’t call you a liar It was a mistake big deal people are wrong all the time. Ive been wrong. Theres no shame in that.And here I didn’t say something untrue. What I said was completely true.
Referring to this:
You had said: ““At that time I didn’t read her file – so I didn’t know that her motion contained her evidence.”I replied: “Lol. so when you said “she will provide evidence” You were lying correct? ( To be clear: you are big on calling people liars, I dont think you were lying (then) . I think you were simply mistaken, and perhaps hopeful that somehow things would go your way. “)
Why don’t you do the same?
Even if Thomas et al won the day. and Scotus took the case. which would have made me wrong. completely wrong.
Still say “thats ok, you made a mistake”“as long as I don’t end up being a Liar.”
Oy hasn’t been working out
“Ya See, you can end up being correct & a Liar.”
How?““The Lie of Fabrication”
“Fabrication is telling others something you don’t know for sure is true.””You cut of the rest. ThAT is a type of lie btw.
By definition a lie isnt true (happy to provide a source – a normal one like a dictionary)
If I say “today is Thursday”
Which of the 8 lies is that?
Obviously its none (even if I’m 100% sure its Thursday) simply because its true.On the other hand if I say something untrue like “Health is making a good point ” clearly that’s a lie, it isn’t true.
So we can look to the list of lies to see what type it is.
But you can’t look to a list of lies to categorize a true statement“At the time you made the Fabrication, you didn’t know for sure that it would come True!”
No I was 99.99999% sure. (Even if I was wrong, I’d say I was wrong not necessarily a lie, but it would be reasonable to call it a lie in that case)
“Eg. S/o says Joe stole a bike & later on you found out he was correct.”
Ummm yes obviously that person told the truth. I never in my wildest dreams thought that would be controversial .
Even if it was a flat out guess. He never met or heard of Joe.
If he was right he was right its not a lie.
No one would possibly entertain the thought that he “lied” if he was right“S/o says SCOTUS will declare a case moot & later on you found out he was correct.”
Ditto“Both of these cases are the Lie of Fabrication”
Um no neither are cases of lying of say kind
“It’s sad that you can’t see beyond your own Nose!”
Lol!
“I don’t lie, like you do.”
Lol if by “Lie ” you mean be correct. then you are right, almost nothing you have said on this thread has been true.
“Just because I thought it was a good possibility, ”
Lol on Jan 18 Yo uwere not sure!
“I’m not going to agree with s/o who wrote that he Knows for Sure!”
you disnt have to agree. but saying “Your a liar” when you really meant “I think theres a good possiblity you are right but don’ t be so sure” is hilarious.“I didn’t write that – Hopeline did.
”no hopeline didint
They listed ” “8 different lies people tell:”
These are different types of “lies” Not different types of truths
a Lie by definition is something not true.
For example You misrepresenting what Hopeline wrote is a lie. You arent telling the truth.“Take it up with them.”
I dont have a question for them.
(and besides they aren’t as authorative as you seem to think. have you even heard of them before? )“No one thinks it’s definitely gonna happen.
But your post was different than e/o’s thought process.”Lolololol YOU said you also thought it could happen ! in htat same post “Just because I thought it was a good possibility, ”
you are easily my favorite poster. I wish you only success in life” but you said they will!”
And they didThe word for that is truth.
” How about picking up a Mussar Sefer?!?”
Our conversations are the best mussar.
The depths people can go to to not say “I’m sorry I called you a lair”:
Reinterpreting “lie”
Contradicting your own posts “Just because I thought it was a good possibility,”.. vs .”. But your post was different than e/o’s thought process.”“Almost e/o knew that they could declare the motion as moot.”
Lol!
you didint
even after I told you they would. yo udindt say maybe I was right, but I didnt know for sure./ yo usaid I was a liar and that Trump still had a chance. You cited Goyish prophets to buttress your claim.“So what was your intention to your original post?!?”
quite simple really
I have an absulte fasciation with people that can look at black and say its white.
Ive mentioned this before disagreeing over ordinary things doesnt intrest me. Is Pizza better or Ice cream, you like Pizza I like ice cream. there is no right/wrong thats boringThis is what interests me. There was no chance of Trump winning (certainly not by Jan 18 when you STILL called me a liar)
Most people would say wow I hoped he would win, sadly I was wrong.
but not you you double down reinterpret . Even the word “liar” you cam up with a new defitnion for
I find it fascinating“It’s Not part of the definition, it’s an example.”
Lol! An example of the defitnion.
If it isn’t a lie, it isn’t a “lie of fabrication”
Did you really never learn the difference between Motzei shem Ra and Lashan Hara?while we are repeating:
I asked this before (three times before this is the 4th)
If I tell you there will be a tornado tomorrow. I have absolutely know way of knowing this* I straight up made it up, lets say I got it from I don’t know Goyishe prophets.
But lo and behold there was a tornado.
did I lie?and (2nd time)
Moreover using your “lie of fabrication” definition the way you are. Every time the weather report says “there will be sun tomorrow etc” It is a lie. Even if they were right. since obviosuly they cant be 100% certain.
Is this what you are saying?Health
“I’ll quote it again:”
I already told you why that defitnion didnt help (namely it is a type of LIE ie it is a type of untruth, what I told you was true.
Posting it again doesn’t add anything.
“The Lie of Fabrication”
Again this is posting a type of “LIE” what I told was not a lie at all. By any definition I can find .
You cut off the end of the defintion there “…Fabrications are extremely hurtful because they lead to rumors that can damage someone else’s reputation. Spreading rumors is not only a lie but is also stealing another’s reputation. Paul wrote: I admit that I love spreading rumors. It’s all about telling lies about someone you don’t like. It usually works.”
This is not at all the subject at hand. (This is called a lie of omission leaving out information)So anyway going with your definition
I asked this before (twice before)
If I tell you there will be a tornado tomorrow. I have absolutely know way of knowing this* I straight up made it up, lets say I got it from I don’t know Goyishe prophets.
But lo and behold there was a tornado.
did I lie?Moreover using your “lie of fabrication” defitnion the way you are. Ever ytime the weatehr report says “there will be sun tomorrow etc” It is a lie. Even if they were right. since obviosuly they cant be 100% certain.
Is this what you are saying?“There are 4 types of Lies – White ones, gray ones, black ones, red ones”
Interesting source.
but these are 4 types of LIES.
I did not lie at all
What I told you was true.I am not familiar with the definition of “lie” you are using
you said :
““I called you a Liar, because at that time no one could know for sure what will happen, ie – it’s possible there are exceptions in this case – Not to declare that it is Moot!””Yes I know what happened.
But the court DID declare it moot I was right. I am not familiar with a defintion of “lie” that would include my having told the truth as being a “lie” simply becasue you don;’t thik I should have been so sure.I asked this before
If I tell you there will be a tornado tomorrow. I have absolutely know way of knowing this* I straight up made it up, lets say I got it from I don;t know Goyishe prophets.
But lo and behold there was a tornado.
did I lie?(* note: this is not at all analogous to our case since I had good reason to know the court wouldnt take the case In fact AFTER the court declined to hear the case you said you too new, as I did: “I and a lot of people realized that they were delaying the case so they wouldn’t have to get involved.”)
“People make motions and later on the Judge reads them and decides the next step.”
Sure it happens.
This was never in dispute
But The judge reading the motion on his own is not a “court case” nor a “hearing”“It’s obvious that you never had a Court case!”
true“You have to read the legal definition.”
do you have another definition? the one you provided earlier defined “hearing” they way I understood it. A hearing involves “evidence and/or argument presented” before the judges. Not judges reading motions or petitions on their own.but ok, If your using your own definition of hearign, thats fine.
This is the part that I find more interesting:
“I called you a Liar, because at that time no one could know for sure what will happen, ie it’s possible there are exceptions in this case Not to declare that it is Moot!”
are you using your own definition of “Liar”?
I’m not familiar with this one.
Could you provide a source that defines “Liar” as Correctly predicting something that “at that time no one could know for sure what will happen,”
I have never heard a Liar defined this way. Is it the Legal definition? Maybe from Secret Supreme court?Yes it was theoretically possible (keep in mind 3 justices voted to hear it) for me to have been wrong. And the court to have agreed to hear the case
but as I predicted, they didn’t agree to hear it.If the court granted Ceartiori, and agreed to hear the case, then perhaps I lied (we can quibble If I was mistaken or lying,)
But they didn’t, SO I was right.
What definition of “liar” are you using?Health
I’m going to back up a bit
I think the discussion over your reinterpretation of “hearing” isnt going anywhere. IF you won’t listen to the definition YOU provided that proves you wrong, you certainly won’t listen to me.
LEts get back to the subject at hand.
On Jan 18 I told you The court would dismiss the case for being moot .
You called me a liar and brought up “Goyish” prophets to back up you claim.My question is 2 fold (though they are linked)
1) Why didnt you mention this reinterpretation of “hearing” then why did you only think of it on feb 4 , 2 weeks later? You should have said on Jan 18, something to the effect of “oh you mean it will be dismissed as moot, that may happen. however that is still a hearing” Why when I said it will be dismissed as moot did you say I was a liar?
when I said “. The Supreme court doesn’t hear cases that are moot, ie theoretical cases with no practical ramification (Article III section 2 of the constitution limits court’s scope to “cases & controversies” . Any election litigation is now theoretical Biden won (even if unfairly) There is a zero percent chance that the case will be heard. Zero.”
As soon as you saw that, you should have said whoa that makes no sense declaring it moot IS a hearing,? Why did you only think of this reinterpretation 2 weeks later?
2) Even if I was using a “lay person” definition and not a “legal one” Thats ok I’m a lay person. You should have said on Jan 18 “oh you mean it will be dismissed as moot, that may happen. however legally that is still a hearing”
I said it would be dismissed as moot , you called me a liar
It was dismissed as moot
why can’t you grant that?Earlier you said “your a baal gaivah how were yo uso sure” For arguments sake, fine it wass pure gaivah., and I got lucky. but I was right, I didnt lie, at least on the dismissal.
why can’t you grant that?Health
“Yes there is.”As mentioned. At conference ONLY judges are present “According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc”
you can’t have a “proceeding before a judge” if there are only judges.“They read the Motions and make decisions, like whether to Grant Certiorari or not.”
This point was never in dispute. This is EXACTLY what happens. (there is no court case, there are no hearings) they read the motions and make decisions. Of course as you said some are read more than others as some may be more vague.
And I told you months ago they would deny Certioari
you called me a liar for my correct predictionThis is what we are arguing about
Yes youve stuck in dozens of wrong facts as well, that Ive explained to you. But don’t get distarcted from the original pointYou say “They read the Motions and make decisions, like whether to Grant Certiorari or not.”
As if it is a chidush.
This is what Ive been telling you for months. Of course, I knew what they would decide, so I told you that too
you called me a liar, and Can’t grant that I didn’t lie even when time has proven me right
THAT is the argument“Now they are interested in Oral Arguments and/or More Evidence, before any Judgment!”
At conference could they provide a ruling on the actual case. IE overrule or uphold the lower courts decision or are there limits on their “judgement” ?Health
“So they heard the case on the day of a conference.”
no such thing
Heard = ” Any proceeding before a Judge or other magistrate, w/o a jury in which evidence and/or argument is presented to determine some issue of fact or both issues of fact and law. Etc” (defintion supplied by you. Well done!)
conference = ” The Justices meet in a private conference to discuss cases argued earlier that week. The Justices also discuss and vote on petitions for review” (from Supreme court website)There is no “proceeding before a judge” on conference days. The only people in attendene are the judges. They mean different things.
“So do they come to the conclusion?… They read the case and they make decisions on it”
Even if they did. (and Earlier I said I’m sure they sometimes read it, and you said they “almost alays read it)
That in no way whatsoever changes the fact that the case was dismissed for being moot, as I said it would“So they did Hear the case,”
They didnt. They denied Certiorari“I gave you the definition of “Hearing” – 2 times already.”
YEs. it was an excellent defnition.
Thank you very much for supplying it. You should read it as it says CLEARLY that a hearing is when evidence/arguments are presented before a judge. NOT when judges gater and decide whther to accept a case.
It is impossible to have read the definition and think “hearing” and conference are interchangeable“And like you said -“and if you have any lingering questions I’ll of course gladly answer”!”
I Do!
Here’s what I find confusing.
You say the court “heard” the case.
Yet they denied Certiorari (do you argu on this fact as well?)What would have happened if the court granted Certiorari. In other words LEts’ say Gorsuch , ALito and Thomas convinced 2 others that they should take the case.
Would would that mean? they agree to hear a case they already heard?What do you think Granting Certiorari means?
“How many times do I have to tell you – that the Motions contained the evidence and they read the Motions?!?”
hopefully no more times. since it isnt correct. The motions contianed evidence on the CASe. The court did not hear the case .
A writ of Certiorari is when a higher court reviews the case of a lower court.
The supreme court DENIED the writ to quote from the Supre court’s order “The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied. ” (easily available online search (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021)Like everything you’ve said on this topic you have more terms mixed up:
“An argument day is when they declared a Writ of Centorari.
In a conference day, they could have a Hearing.”This is incorrect.
Argument days are when ” an opportunity for the Justices to ask questions directly of the attorneys representing the parties to the case, and for the attorneys to highlight arguments that they view as particularly important. Arguments are generally scheduled on specified Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday mornings beginning on the first Monday in October, and continuing through the end of April” (see supremecourt . gov where this quote is pulled verbatim)
Conference days are when ” The Justices meet in a private conference to discuss cases argued earlier that week. The Justices also discuss and vote on petitions for review”
It is on conference days (NOT argument days) that Certiori is granted/denied . note Judges conference is PRIVATE. “According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc” (source UScourts . gov)
There is no hearing, there are no arguments. The Justices discuss cases that had been heard and whether should hear others“And that’s what they did and then they made a Judgment to dismiss the case due to Mootness!”
Yes As I said they would (though technically not a judgment, they denied certiorari because of its mootness)
Soooooooo I didn’t lie…..
Your’e starting to repeat yourself more , I’m starting to worry you arent reading my posts.
I’ll still gladly reply to nay new information you provide (like definitions of “hearing” that prove you wrong, or correct your mixed up conference/argument days)
and if you have any lingering questions I’ll of course gladly answer
but if you are just going to repeat “judgment of mootness” over and over , then sadly our fun might have to end