><<Johnson is an attorney. His method of argument and use of language is
>that of an attorney and evidence based.>>
70>Which is, of course, to say that everything a lawyer says is true.
70>Right?
70>Jim
(If I could muse a bit)
This prompted an interesting thought...
In a courtroom, an attorney would not succeed without the evidence. The
court wouldn't buy into hearsay, conjecture, inference, or reasoning.
"Corpus delicti" cries the jury... "bring on the evidence necessary for
the truth".
Elsewhere, well, the rules are different and truth, being so elusive,
seems to take on a different meaning.
Paul
to: IN:70672.1241@compuserve.com
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu