14 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsIn the post I replied to earlier you claimed that someone found liable is at fault, and linked this to criminal guilt. My point is that someone found vicariously liable is such despite not being at fault, but because they are the nearest available person. The first form was where an employer can be held vicariously liable for their employees actions. The tort may be the fault of the employee, but the employer has this strange kind of no blame liability. Civil liability is not equivalent to criminal guilt, otherwise the burdens of proof would be the same.
I am not a Lawyer so I don"t know all the legal jargon. I am just stating my belief on the subject, wrong or right. In my book, there is no need for 100% certainty to find a person guilty of doing wrong. O.J. Simpson was found quilty by public opinion, even though he was found not quilty in a court of law. The not quilty verdict does not mean he was fo ...[text shortened]... it was not by way of negligence or accident either. It was by way of murder.
The Instructor
16 Jun 13
So if his chin is in his non moving hand the whole time, say its his left - tiny blue tooth speaker bud in the left ear, a little sleight of hand puts it in as he leans in to the game and pulls it out at the end. Wireless see. transmitter is someones keyring. Then the piece de resistance - one of the commentator's team is on the payroll, the guy entering the moves into the computer the whole time to check who is winning. Hence - no internet broadcast, no cheating. Delay doesn't matter because the cheater is in the room. That's my working theory
16 Jun 13
Originally posted by ExumaTheories mean nothing without hard evidence.
So if his chin is in his non moving hand the whole time, say its his left - tiny blue tooth speaker bud in the left ear, a little sleight of hand puts it in as he leans in to the game and pulls it out at the end. Wireless see. transmitter is someones keyring. Then the piece de resistance - one of the commentator's team is on the payroll, the guy entering th ...[text shortened]... cheating. Delay doesn't matter because the cheater is in the room. That's my working theory
The Instructor
16 Jun 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI never claimed any CRIMINAL guilt. Since when is cheating at chess a criminal offense? I was only referring to plain old guilt and innocence outside of a criminal court.
In the post I replied to earlier you claimed that someone found liable is at fault, and linked this to criminal guilt. My point is that someone found vicariously liable is such despite not being at fault, but because they are the nearest available person. The first form was where an employer can be held vicariously liable for their employees actions. The ...[text shortened]... liability is not equivalent to criminal guilt, otherwise the burdens of proof would be the same.
The Instructor
16 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindslol, since when have you ever accepted hard evidence.
Theories mean nothing without hard evidence.
The Instructor
It all boils down to what is enough evidence. The astronomical odds of him matching Houdini eliminates any doubt in me. The fact that no one has figured out how exactly he does it (yet) is enough for doubt for others.
There will always be supporters and detractors.
I thought there was sufficient evidence to convict O J Simpson and Casey Anthoney. Others say they disagreed but I don't believe them. O J was found not guilty because of the jury bias against police and caucasians. Yes, there were a white minority on that jury but they were weak-willed who gave in to the pressure of the racist blacks. They had no intention of convicting him from day one. Cochrane got too much credit. Anyone could have represented Simpson and got the same verdict with that jury.
Casey Anthony was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion too. But the jury was swayed by the 'likebility' of Jose Baez and the perceived arrogance of prosecutor Jeff Ashton. I watched the trial daily and Baez always greeted the jury with 'good morning'. When the jury started responding back with their 'good mornings', I knew the prosecution was in trouble.
Only time will give us the answer...maybe. Like Lance Armstrong, Borislav Ivanov will eventually be caught or admit it.
16 Jun 13
If he is cheating, this guy has some sort of James Bond gadgetry.
What I don't get, is why this guy didn't gradually build his wins, rather than just slaughtering top-level players out of the blue. If he was patient, slowly beating better opponents over time, he wouldn't have raised suspicion like he did (at least not for a very long time). He could've made serious amounts of money, got some fame, and possibly retired before raising any red flags.
17 Jun 13
Originally posted by woodypusherCochrane - If it doesn't fit, you got to acquit.
lol, since when have you ever accepted hard evidence.
It all boils down to what is enough evidence. The astronomical odds of him matching Houdini eliminates any doubt in me. The fact that no one has figured out how exactly he does it (yet) is enough for doubt for others.
There will always be supporters and detractors.
I thought there was suffic ...[text shortened]... wer...maybe. Like Lance Armstrong, Borislav Ivanov will eventually be caught or admit it.
RJHinds - If you can't show the matchup, you need to shutup.
The Instructor
19 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsBugs Bunny - What a maroon.
Cochrane - If it doesn't fit, you got to acquit.
RJHinds - If you can't show the matchup, you need to shutup.
The Instructor
According to RJ, if you watch a magician in Las Vegas (Copperfield, Angel, etc)
and you see them do a 'magic' trick onstage; unless you can prove how they did it, you must accept it as real magic.
-or-
If you see someone on stage, or anywhere, do a card trick which you cannot explain, you must accept it as real
-or-
if a 'psychic' reads minds, as I've seen on TV many times, and they are correct, then I am supposed to beleive they really read minds.
Like Ivanov, their tricks were done in front of people.
I don't need to know how it's done. I don't know how Copperfield et al does it. All I know is that it's humanly impossible.
I can't prove Big Foot doesn't exist. I can't prove the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. I can't show how they made those photos/videos of them. But common sense tells me they don't exist.
Of course, someone like RJ, who believes someone once walked on water, will believe anything 😀
The Professor