mlalum
Banned
What's that got to with anything about you being out of line on this serious business.
The way it really went down
- Thread starter wincardona
- Start date
- Status
What's that got to with anything about you being out of line on this serious business.
Hey, do you play Scrabble? I'll play you some for a C-note a pop. You have to post first, though. I will post, too. We can leave our post monies with a neutral party to hold for safekeeping. I can see by how your posts are spelled, punctuated, and written that you'd be a great Scrabble player.
Let's get ready to rumble. And I promise that I will have no Samoans in my corner.
I have no problem with you or this post but you got to admit from any perspective this is an enormous amount of hearsay.It was kind of strange how this happened. I called Billy on his cell phone and he answered and said wait just a minute. Now I hear him talking on his land line and at first have no idea who he is talking to. As I listen and hear Billy say Dave a couple of times it dawns on me who it is. Intermittently the speaker phone goes off and on. Why I have no idea. But I was privy to some of the more revealing parts of their call. Viffer distinctly said he wasn't paying after Billy offered to settle for half. Billy told Viffer that he was done with it after this phone call, but he couldn't speak for Scott. By the way I heard EVERYTHING Billy said to Viffer. Let's just say it was a very enlightening conversation, since I did not know all the details prior to this.
I listened to them talk for at least twenty minutes before the cell phone went dead, and Billy was ever the diplomat and sounded like a high priced attorney trying to work out a deal. He never raised his voice and kept his humor about him while trying his best to communicate with someone who was sometimes irrational, often illogical and in the end totally obstinate. I give Billy high marks for how he handled himself in that conversation. He was nothing less than brilliant, without success. It was like he was debating with a rock. And a dumb rock at that.
Bottom line, this entire conversation was never about whether Viffer had paid or not paid Scott. Viffer was not trying to sell that bull to Billy, as he is on here. It was all about what to do about the remaining unpaid balance of 50K plus the 10K for the truck. Viffer continually refused all options to settle amicably.
P.S. I don't think it's considered hearsay if I actually hear both parties talking. Am I wrong about this?
Since I was young my father always told me this and I will always remember it, "Believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear."
:thumbup: Could be fun. We'd both have to watch out for any late comers....Incy and his triple word score off of "shark" in the final minutes could spell doom for all of us.Hey, do you play Scrabble? I'll play you some for a C-note a pop. You have to post first, though. I will post, too. We can leave our post monies with a neutral party to hold for safekeeping. I can see by how your posts are spelled, punctuated, and written that you'd be a great Scrabble player.
Let's get ready to rumble. And I promise that I will have no Samoans in my corner.
I promise not to lube any tiles or shuffle with questionable gaps.
Just a sarcastic, but relevant, question here.
What if DD claimed to have someone with an equal reputation to Jay's, state that he overheard on DD's speakerphone the same conversation with totally opposite statements?
What would do to the balance of arguments?
Equally and legally meaningless, IMO.
Sorry. :sorry:
Jim
What if DD claimed to have someone with an equal reputation to Jay's, state that he overheard on DD's speakerphone the same conversation with totally opposite statements?
What would do to the balance of arguments?
Equally and legally meaningless, IMO.
Sorry. :sorry:
Jim
It was kind of strange how this happened. I called Billy on his cell phone and he answered and said wait just a minute. Now I hear him talking on his land line and at first have no idea who he is talking to. As I listen and hear Billy say Dave a couple of times it dawns on me who it is. Intermittently the speaker phone goes off and on (at least it sounded like it since I could hear Viffer talking). Why I have no idea. But I was privy to some of the more revealing parts of their call. Viffer distinctly said he wasn't paying after Billy offered to settle for half. Billy told Viffer that he was done with it after this phone call, but he couldn't speak for Scott. By the way I heard EVERYTHING Billy said to Viffer. Let's just say it was a very enlightening conversation, since I did not know all the details prior to this.
I listened to them talk for at least twenty minutes before the cell phone went dead, and Billy was ever the diplomat and sounded like a high priced attorney trying to work out a deal. He never raised his voice and kept his humor about him while trying his best to communicate with someone who was sometimes irrational, often illogical and in the end totally obstinate. I give Billy high marks for how he handled himself in that conversation. He was nothing less than brilliant, without success. It was like he was debating with a rock. And a dumb rock at that.
Bottom line, this entire conversation was never about whether Viffer had paid or not paid Scott. Viffer was not trying to sell that bull to Billy, as he is on here. It was all about what to do about the remaining unpaid balance of 50K plus the 10K for the truck. Viffer continually refused all options to settle amicably.
P.S. I don't think it's considered hearsay if I actually hear both parties talking. Am I wrong about this? What I suspect was happening was that Billy was moving the phone away from his ear (and closer to the cell phone) so I could hear what Viffer was saying. When he had the phone against his ear, I couldn't hear as well.
Jay, how can you hear both guys talking when Billy said the speaker was off? On top of that, you're not in the same room, but in another phone?
That would not be good enough in court, that's for sure
Now you're talking turkey. This is my bailiwick, so to speak.
Hearsay: Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he has heard others say. However, as the definition above also states, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule. An example is when the original declarant is not available and the statement contains indicia of reliability.
Do you want me to look up "indicia of reliability" for you?
Why not? The more discrete approach had failed and that left either a seriously physical approach or this. This is the pool community, after all.
(My humble advice would be for Billy to stay on track with the main negotiation and not get side tracked by all the trolls.)
Last edited:
Now you're talking turkey. This is my bailiwick, so to speak.
Hearsay: Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he has heard others say. However, as the definition above also states, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule. An example is when the original declarant is not available and the statement contains indicia of reliability.
Do you want me to look up "indicia of reliability" for you?
I would like it translated into "foreigner english" (easy and understandable words) or preferrable Norwegian. Can you do that?
Hmmm, my mom said it in reverse order.
Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see !
Why are you even in this thread? You don't like gambling, you don't like the characters in pool that gamble. You contributed to another "That's what's wrong with pool" line that I detest so much, but really why do you continue to hang out in the thread?
You've made it clear how you feel about things, like anyone cares anyway, but what more do you have to say without repeating yourself? That's why I'm responding, is because you've said the same thing over and over and I'm trying to understand what motivates this kind of person to do so. It's kind of like a person that hates porn, you catch them in a seedy X rated movie, and when asked why they're there, they say they don't like it.
Have you noticed how you have grown in poularity since your first post? All of your unfounded accusations are as rediculous as your self righteous proclamations. You want to be me but your stuck with yourself. What a dilemma.
Since when is this a court, other than the court of public opinion? Rules of evidence and legal testimony are non-existent. Why try to make it something it is not. This is more about the pursuit of the truth using logic as it leads to what can be believed.
From where I sit, in the nose bleed section, The Scott gang is definitely winning.
From where I sit, in the nose bleed section, The Scott gang is definitely winning.
Last edited:
...You want to be me but your stuck with yourself. What a dilemma.
Well, I don't have that problem because I'm already you! :thumbup:
Now you're talking turkey. This is my bailiwick, so to speak.
Hearsay: Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he has heard others say. However, as the definition above also states, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule. An example is when the original declarant is not available and the statement contains indicia of reliability.
Do you want me to look up "indicia of reliability" for you?
Although Nevada is a "one party" state with respect to the taping, and/or use of a speakerphone, I believe that the testimony becomes much more complicated with respect to court admissibility.
IMO, this would never make it to the jury. :wink:
Jim
But nobody was being audio-recorded. That's the beauty of it! :wink:
This ain't like Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky deal. In Maryland, where Tripp lived, taping is what got her in hot water. It's illegal to tape-record conservations in Maryland without the other party's permission and knowledge.
" i wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire" larrynj1
- Status