Mara Zebest: Top Computer Graphic Expert In The Nation Going After Obama.

Silence from rahl.

That was really too easy. Destroying liberals like you in a debate is something I do all the time. And I really enjoyed doing it, as always.

 

Why is this even a question? Of course it's more believable. One is hearsay. One is not.

 

Wow, it doesn't seem like you thought about that one much. First of all, we know he's dead, so neither one of them have any possibility of being true which means they're both equally unbelievable. Secondly, neither one is hearsay because hearsay would be if I asked her what Elvis said and then reported to you that this is what Elvis said. If it came directly from her then it would not be hearsay. Thirdly, they both carry equal weight in believability because they both require you to believe that she's telling you the truth. It doesn't matter whether she's supposedly quoting him or not. Quoting him would make very little difference because you would still have to take her word for it. Make sense?

 

I didn't have to. It was a ridiculously easy question.

Which parallels the birther drama exactly. There is no possibility Obama is ineligible to be President, which means anything they think is evidence of that is completely unbelievable.

I think you need to go back and study hearsay again.

Trust me on this, from someone who has actually gone to law school... You have it wrong. In fact, if anything, BOTH of them are hearsay, unless you actually get the quote from Fukino directly.

Reporting what someone told you is hearsay.

But there would be a quote. With direct words. I was working on the assumption that Fukino's words could be verified as coming from her.

The simple fact is that birthers are insane. They are focusing on the fact that this paraphrase said "half" of typed and handwritten, and using that as "evidence" that the birth certificate is fake, because it's not exactly, 50%, to the letter, "half" typed. Meanwhile, a reasonable person recognizes that this was paraphrasing, not a direct quote, so therefore we don't even know if Fukino said "half" anything.

The reasonable person also realizes, much more significantly, that at this point about a half-dozen officials of the State of Hawaii have verified the authenticity of the birth certificate and COLB released by Obama.

As I have explained to birthers several times, this means that the birth certificate is genuine, period. Obama would have no need to forge one because, if there is a conspiracy, those statements by the state of Hawaii mean those officials are in on it. Therefore, he could get a real birth certificate saying anything he wished.

Of course, birthers know deep down that such a conspiracy is absurd and has zero evidence for it, which is why, like you, they parse meaningless minutae, so that they will not have to give up and admit that a half-black liberal with a funny, Muslim-sounding name is the rightful President of the United States.

 

I'm amazed at your deficiency in logic. How about we just stick to the Elvis analogy for now? I don't want you to just ignore your incorrect comments concerning it. We can get to the birther stuff later.

No, I'm not going to trust you. Wow, you went to law school and you don't even know what the definition of hearsay is? Here it is, according to The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition:

"Information heard by one person about another. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in a court of law because it is based on the reports of others rather than on the personal knowledge of a witness."

Back to my analogy, if a woman is having a one on one conversation with Elvis and Elvis says "I'm still alive" or told her that he's still alive then obviously the woman is the witness and this is her personal knowledge. She didn't say that she heard from someone that Elvis was still alive, she claims to have actually heard Elvis tell her that he was still alive. If a man had told this woman that Elvis told him that he was still alive and then this second woman told someone else then this would be hearsay. If you're a witness to Elvis being alive and he tells you that he's alive then what you say later cannot be considered hearsay because you're a witness. Get it?

I noticed that you did not respond to my last comment: "Thirdly, they both carry equal weight in believability because they both require you to believe that she's telling you the truth. It doesn't matter whether she's supposedly quoting him or not. Quoting him would make very little difference because you would still have to take her word for it."

Both a quote and a paraphrase would require you to take her word for it, wouldn't it? So how could either one be anymore believable that the other in this analogy?

 

A quote is more reliable because it is a word-for-word recounting. That's why courts use word-for-word transcription and not just note takers.

Because a quote conveys the actual words, instead of the added step of filtering those words through paraphrasing.

And, to the idiot birthers, that's the key here. They take a paraphase that says "half" and use that as "evidence" that the real birth certificate must be exactly 50% typewritten and 50% handwritten. However, we don't even know if Fukino said that word, because we're not hearing her words. We're hearing the words of someone who is telling us what she told them, i.e. hearsay.

And yes, obviously, I am working from the assumption that a quote would be true and correct, because that is a necessary precept to show the birthers why they shouldn't be relying on a paraphrase. Of course, if the reporter would fabricate the quotes, the whole discussion of hearsay and evidence is out the window.

 

You didn't answer the question. I asked, "Both a quote and a paraphrase would require you to take her word for it, wouldn't it?" Meaning, the determination of the validity of her statements have to be made based upon her credibility, not whether she quoted Elvis or paraphrased him.

 

Of course, but that's not the issue here.

The issue here is whether a paraphrase is as reliable, all other things being equal (thus taking the credibility of the reporter out of the equation), for purposes of determining the actual words stated by someone else, as a quote. That's the relevant question, because the birthers have taken this paraphrase at face value as evidence, meaning they are not questioning the credibility of the reporters.

Clearly, it is not.

And that leads us back to the problem, and away from this hopelessly distracting discussion: Birthers leaning on the strict meaning of a word, and demanding that word be borne out in exactly precise fashion, while in fact we don't even know if that word was used or implicated.


The birthers are reading the paraphrase that says "half typed", and relying on the word "half" as evidence that the released birth certificate is a fraud, because it is not exactly 50% typed and 50% handwritten. In other words, they are using an imprecise paraphrasing to demand precision.

If you are a rational person, you will agree that is a flawed position. Do you agree? Yes or no.

 

My questions: "'Both a quote and a paraphrase would require you to take her word for it, wouldn't it?' Meaning, the determination of the validity of her statements have to be made based upon her credibility, not whether she quoted Elvis or paraphrased him."

Your answer:

Great, so you agree with me. You replied with "Of course..." which means that you agree that "the determination of the validity of her statements have to be made based upon her credibility, not whether she quoted Elvis or paraphrased him."

The same can be said for Isikoff and the MSNBC article. The determination of the validity of his statement about what Fukino told him is based upon his credibility, not whether he quoted Fukino or paraphrased her. You agreed with me in the Elvis analogy and logically you would have to agree in the case of Isikoff and Fukino.

Now here are a couple of things you've just said that are illogical.

You can't take the credibility of the reporter out of the equation. There was no video camera or audio recording device. Of course his credibility is in the equation. It's the only thing that matters here. You even agreed with me that "the determination of the validity of her statements have to be made based upon her credibility". And right after you agree with me on this you say that the credibility of the reporter can be taken out of the equation. That is completely contradictory and illogical.

Yes, that is a flawed position. Unfortunately for you, that position is a straw man argument that only liberals like you have concocted. I've never said that the BC would have to be exactly 50% typed and 50% handwritten and I've never heard anyone who has. If it were 51% typed and 49% handwritten then I think any rational person would agree that that fits with Fukino's purported statement of "half typed and half handwritten". If it were 52% typed and 48% handwritten then I think any rational person would agree that that fits with Fukino's purported statement of "half typed and half handwritten". If it were 53% typed and 47% handwritten then I think any rational person would agree that that fits with Fukino's purported statement of "half typed and half handwritten". Get the idea?

But 98% typed with only a couple of dates that are handwritten? No, that does not fit with her purported statement that the BC is "half typed and half handwritten".

But... none of this matters anyway because you've already agreed with me. It's Isikoff's credibility that matters and not whether he quoted or paraphrased her. Do we have any reason to believe that Isikoff was lying or didn't know what he was talking about? No. Therefore, it's very likely that he was accurate when he claimed that Fukino told him that Obama's BC was "half typed and half handwritten." Thanks for playing, BullsLawDan. I hope you've learned something.

 

No, I agree that either a quote or a paraphrasing in some sense relies on the credibility of the reporter.

But you're missing the point. The birthers have assigned Isikoff credibility. The birthers are not questioning the credibility of the article or reporter.

Therefore, in this particular situation, the credibility of the person writing the article has been taken out of the equation.

Ordinary I would agree, but in this situation, the birthers have given the reporter 100% absolute credibility. That's why they hang their hat on the specific words, instead of giving the reporter partial credibility and understanding that a paraphrase might not be exact words. That's what you're missing.

The birthers are the ones that need to figure this out, not me. They need to understand that, just because a reporter paraphrases and uses a particular word does not mean that word was used.

No, I say the credibility has been taken out of the equation - and yes, it's illogical. Birthers are illogical.

LOL... Hysterical. You use the term "straw man" and then make an actual straw man in the same sentence... Assuming that I'm a "liberal" merely because I do not ascribe to the idiotic delusion that Obama is somehow lying about his birth records.

Many birthers have. Search the posts here.

Birthers are not rational, so there's not really any point in trying to figure out how rational people would parse that statement.

Someone who focuses on this Isikoff article and takes it at face value, while completely discrediting the fact that, in official statements, multiple Hawaii officials have verified Obama's birth in Hawaii and the authenticity of all of the birth documents he has released, is not rational. Moreover, someone who thinks a person could become President of the United States, the most scrutinized position in the world, while hiding their familial origins, is similarly not rational.

Even Isikoff's article does not say she said the "birth certificate" was half and half. The article says the "original birth record" was half and half. Original birth record is another phrase that's a victim of paraphrasing. It might mean just the birth certificate, it might mean the birth certificate, along with all of the other documents that are contained in a birth record.

It is, however, birthers have already decided that Isikoff is 100% absolutely credible. Given that starting point, a quote would be better evidence of a statement than a paraphrase. Period.

He never even claimed that. Read the article again.

And while you're reading the article again, why don't you make sure and read all of the times in the article where Isikoff reports different ways Fukino states that Obama was born in Hawaii and his birth records are real.

Your whole argument is based upon finding Isikoff credible. Therefore, you must accept those other parts of the article and therefore that Obama was born in Hawaii. Right?

I've learned that, while this board has banned a few of the ignorant, irrational, birthers, apparently more have sprung up.

And it's plenty of fun to play. Birthers are such easy targets.

 

gloating is unbecoming to you fair minded one... banning the birthers from the board... ? it's a brave new obama world here. if these were the standards, .... what's next eugenics ??

your slip is showing...

 

You're not even making sense at this point. Have your meds upped.

 

It appears that Wong's proof by Neal Krawetz has made mistakes in the past. Who is to say that he is not mistaken now. It appears that some agree and some do not as to the authenticity of the LFBC of Barry. So far there is no proof positive one way or the other.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=neal_krawetz_1

Also Wong accused Jay___ of being a sock. Guess that is not true either since Jay has never been banned.

 

Okay, wait a minute.

You "bothered to figure out" who Apuzzo really was (forgetting for the moment, how one "figures out" the hidden identity of a forum poster?) to make sure he knew he'd been caught in a series of lies? There is something wrong with the time line and sequence of events here.

Don't you first have to know Apuzzo is posting on Fogbow as a sock puppet before you use that rationale as a reason to "out" him here? And if you know that, how do you know that?

How do you know that two supposedly different and distinct posters
at Fogbow are fakes (A) and then use this information to go after Apuzzo (B)?
Something is very wrong here. Perhaps you should come clean.
Who is feeding you this information?

 

All who are living in reality agree that it's authentic.

Except for the almost unbelievable mountain-sized pile of proof that it's real.

Ya know, the proof birthers ignore so they don't have to admit they were wrong?

 

Mara Zebest is called the Mad Jewess.. and she just an adobe expert.

https://themadjewess.wordpress.com/tag/mara-zebest/

 

Easy.

When they post the identical original comment complete with identical typos on two different forums within seconds of each other, that is strong evidence that they are the same person.

When they do it repeatedly, it rises to the level of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Note the difference between a real expert and a fake one:

When a real one makes mistakes, he retracts it.

None of WND's fake experts have ever retracted their errors.... although at least Vogt has (without acknowledgment) changed his own story at least once specifically to correct an error pointed out by... wait for it... me.

Apuzzo was here for months before he got caught and banned... even though he had been identified as a sock puppet from his first few posts. Not all sock puppets are caught and banned immediately.

 

Somebody posts identical comments on different forums including identical typos? That seems highly unlikely, if you don't mind me noting it. And it doesn't really cover how you know the protected identity of some poster you dislike.

Granting, for the moment, that you caught a sock puppet (which happens sometimes), there is still a very long leap to identifying this person to the extent that you know his name.

 

Frankly, it's more than a bit Stalinistic that you are somehow "magically" able to learn a poster's personal identity and use it to shut him up.

 

Right. It's highly unlikely unless the two posters are the same person. That's exactly what he was saying.

 

Since Stalin tended to shut people up with a shot through the brain, and Wong 'shuts' someone up by pointing out to the owners of the website that Apuzzo was breaking the sites rule, I would say your statement was worthy of Molotov.

 

Cutting and pasting your own comment will do that.

Insert "duh" here.

There is no doubt that I caught a sock puppet... as the mods can actually see the things that prove it... like IP addresses. If they banned him as a sock puppet, you can be very certain that's exactly what he was.

And yes, it usually is a leap to figuring out who he really is. But Apuzzo was easy. He left clues all over the Web. He left clues regarding where he lived and things had had done, especially a sycophantic meeting with Orly Taitz that corresponded to a photo on her blog with his name.

I didn't even have to search for them, and actually didn't. I just have a memory adequate for the task.

 

No magic necessary. And I'm not a mod, so I didn't ban him.

And you have no idea how transcendentally ironic your comment here actually is.