On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Can't it be judged on the preponderance of the evidence that e isn't one? >> >> (It bugs me that inquiry case judges feel obliged to consider every remote >> possibility. I prefer "the evidence is for X, of course there is some >> twisted >> and remote logic sequence that would allow Y, but since that's so remote >> and there's no evidence for it, X.") > > This is not so remote a possibility; for all we know, pikhq and > Steve Wallace may have met in the course of playing some other > nomic. What bugs me is that judges don't always ask simple questions > and enter the answers (or lack thereof) into evidence, e.g. > > Judge> pikhq, is Steve Wallace a contact point for any nomic > (in the traditional sense of "nomic")? > > pikhq> Not that I know of. > > Judge> So noted. This should be overturned only on the grounds > of positive evidence that pikhq is mistaken or lying.
Fair enough, I should have clarified, I was relying on pikhq's past statements on the nature of Steve Wallace (made in reference to other cases), which strongly imply the answer to your line of questioning. In any case, you're right, the proof should be should be documented in the evidence. -Goethe
