Possible Kracken located

[ExpressLane]

It’s the opinion of a well regarded cyber expert. That he is afraid to testify [hard to blame him] doesn’t negate his *sworn* opinion.

Sworn affidavits can be used in court as evidence.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Sworn affidavits can be used in court as evidence.

Wrong!

The most basic thing about the US legal system is that the adversarial nature means both sides get to question witnesses. An affidavit, if it contains enough factual and relevant information, may be enough to file a lawsuit but it is not accepted as evidence by the court. If the court deems what is contained in the affidavit is relevant then unless both sides stipulate to what is in the affidavit the person who signed the affidavit will have to show up in court under oath for it to become evidence.

[moon]

How about the Kraken is the GOP candidate next time around ?

[Stretch]

A military unit has renamed itself after an right wing internet meme? You really believe this?

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/...tion-codenames

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/15/69824...n-names-ranked

https://www.rd.com/list/funny-military-code-names/

https://www.cracked.com/article_1621...ion-names.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nse_code_names

https://www.ranker.com/list/awesome-...ike-rothschild

[ExpressLane]

Wrong!

The most basic thing about the US legal system is that the adversarial nature means both sides get to question witnesses. An affidavit, if it contains enough factual and relevant information, may be enough to file a lawsuit but it is not accepted as evidence by the court. If the court deems what is contained in the affidavit is relevant then unless both sides stipulate to what is in the affidavit the person who signed the affidavit will have to show up in court under oath for it to become evidence.

Though a court trial generally involves witnesses appearing before court to give oral testimony, but there may be situations in a legal proceeding where affidavits are to be used, such as in the support of written motions or at the time when a witness is not available to appear before the court.

https://lawtimesjournal.in/what-is-a...t-an-evidence/

[cancel2 2022]

That's a very nice way of putting it. My take is that they're effing nuts in the "mad scientist" vein.

You think Judith Curry is nuts, is that what you're saying? So you go along with the MadWitch Cuckoo who lives on Lake Inferior, supports BLM/Antifa violence, yet lives in the whitest place in the US and makes Twin Peaks seem normal? It also puts paid to the transparent lie that she doesn't read people she has on ignore, nobody believes that bullshit either.

Maybe then you ought to read something by the great woman rather than bullshit by Joan of Snark? I love the way idiots like her attempt to denigrate Judith yet lap up any old bullshit by AOC, Obama, Al Gordo or bulshit from the Guardian or BBC. Try this for starters and take on board some of the points she is making.

https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/21/f...on/#more-26765

Why do progressives regressives hate women climate sceptics I wonder, there must be something visceral going on here? There are certainly a few of them, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Jennifer Marohasy, Joanne Nova and Professor Valentina Zharkova to name but a few.

Our very own Dr. Doris Dolittle was rather fond of quoting Miriam O'Brien aka slandering “Sou” from HotWhopper, total shit for brains that even Dotty realised was unhinged.

[SuperStringTheory]

3. PA sent out 1.8mil mail-in ballots, but counted 2.5mil. 700k ballots that need to be taken off.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...ceful-endgame/

this compares the number of mail-ballots requested in the primary to the number of ballots counted in the general. A straight apples-to-apples comparison finds that 1.8 million mail-in ballots were requested in the primary and 1.5 million returned, while 3.1 million ballots were requested in the general and 2.6 million returned.

[SuperStringTheory]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...ceful-endgame/

this compares the number of mail-ballots requested in the primary to the number of ballots counted in the general. A straight apples-to-apples comparison finds that 1.8 million mail-in ballots were requested in the primary and 1.5 million returned, while 3.1 million ballots were requested in the general and 2.6 million returned.

Here is an ap story from 3 weeks before the election showing 2.6 million ballots had already been requested.

https://apnews.com/article/election-...a05bceb2fba83d

[christiefan915]

You think Judith Curry is nuts, is that what you're saying? So you go along with the MadWitch Cuckoo who lives on Lake Inferior, supports BLM/Antifa violence, yet lives in the whitest place in the US and makes Twin Peaks seem normal? It also puts paid to the transparent lie that she doesn't read people she has on ignore, nobody believes that bullshit either.

Maybe then you ought to read something by the great woman rather than bullshit by Joan of Snark? I love the way idiots like her attempt to denigrate Judith yet lap up any old bullshit by AOC, Obama, Al Gordo or bulshit from the Guardian or BBC. Try this for starters and take on board some of the points she is making.

https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/21/f...on/#more-26765

Why do progressives regressives hate women climate sceptics I wonder, there must be something visceral going on here? There are certainly a few of them, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Jennifer Marohasy, Joanne Nova and Professor Valentina Zharkova to name but a few.

Our very own Dr. Doris Dolittle was rather fond of quoting Miriam O'Brien aka slandering “Sou” from HotWhopper, total shit for brains that even Dotty realised was unhinged.

My comment referred to the election conspiracy theorist in the OP, and others like him. As I've said many, many times before, I am completely uninterested in climate arguments, don't follow them and don't know the people who argue either for or against. This has nothing to do with Judith Curry or any other expert. You have strong views on climate just like I do on other topics.

You say "idiots attempt to denigrate Judith" yet everyday you're on here denigrating liberals, liberal platforms, Obama, Biden and other Dem politicians so how are you different from the climate supporters? Also, you seem to be buying into the trump election conspiracy theories and I find that puzzling.

Both Curry and Gore have their supporters and argue pro and con, and there's a big difference between experts going public with their theories and those who discuss them on a small obscure forum. Re: the experts, "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" applies here.

You're criticizing me for chatting with Owl and agreeing with a lot of what she writes yet I've seen you support some posters here who I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole IRL. So I guess it's a personal preference, just like supporting or denying climate science.

[Concart]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...ceful-endgame/

this compares the number of mail-ballots requested in the primary to the number of ballots counted in the general. A straight apples-to-apples comparison finds that 1.8 million mail-in ballots were requested in the primary and 1.5 million returned, while 3.1 million ballots were requested in the general and 2.6 million returned.

This is why it is impossible to debate with a Trumptard. It takes literally 3 seconds to debunk this nonsensical claim, but instead of doing a simple fact check, they ALL repeat this lie over and over and over. If you are too lazy to do a basic fact check, you are not here to debate. Stretch is a troll. A really stupid troll, but a troll.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

https://lawtimesjournal.in/what-is-a...t-an-evidence/

Thanks for confirming exactly what I said. Affidavits are not normally used as evidence in a court proceeding but instead the witness has to appear and give testimony. Unless both sides stipulate that the affidavit doesn't need to be questioned it is rarely if ever entered as evidence. Cases get thrown out because witnesses don't appear to be cross examined.

Though a court trial generally involves witnesses appearing before court to give oral testimony, but there may be situations in a legal proceeding where affidavits are to be used, such as in the support of written motions or at the time when a witness is not available to appear before the court.

Using an affidavit to support a motion does not make that affidavit evidence accepted by the court. At that point it is simply part of the motion which is simply an argument made by a lawyer. The opposing lawyer is free to file a motion saying the affidavits are bullshit which is as much evidence as the affidavits themselves are. The court is free to reject one or the other lawyer's arguments.

Unless you are arguing that the witnesses can't appear for some valid reason then there is no cause for any court to accept the affidavits as evidence simply because they were submitted with a motion.

[cancel2 2022]

My comment referred to the election conspiracy theorist in the OP, and others like him. As I've said many, many times before, I am completely uninterested in climate arguments, don't follow them and don't know the people who argue either for or against. This has nothing to do with Judith Curry or any other expert. You have strong views on climate just like I do on other topics.

You say "idiots attempt to denigrate Judith" yet everyday you're on here denigrating liberals, liberal platforms, Obama, Biden and other Dem politicians so how are you different from the climate supporters? Also, you seem to be buying into the trump election conspiracy theories and I find that puzzling.

Both Curry and Gore have their supporters and argue pro and con, and there's a big difference between experts going public with their theories and those who discuss them on a small obscure forum. Re: the experts, "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" applies here.

You're criticizing me for chatting with Owl and agreeing with a lot of what she writes yet I've seen you support some posters here who I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole IRL. So I guess it's a personal preference, just like supporting or denying climate science.

Denying climate science, what does that actually mean? A basic tenet of the scientific method is scepticism, to be otherwise is not science it's religion. Do you know how much empirical evidence for some of claims made by alarmist scientists? None mostly, the majority comes from CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate models. I don't expect you to believe that but it's true nonetheless. How can you model the atmosphere accurately when scientists cannot model clouds in any realistic manner?

Yes I talk to some people that I wouldn't want to go near in real life, very rarely are people 100% wrong all the time. I can talk to most unless they turn abusive, then I return the favour with both barrels. You can do what you like with Joanie, my opinion is she is poison but I'll leave you to find out for yourself like you did with Snarla.

[christiefan915]

Denying climate science, what does that actually mean? A basic tenet of the scientific method is scepticism, to be otherwise is not science it's religion. Do you know how much empirical evidence for some of claims made by alarmist scientists? None mostly, the majority comes from CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate models. I don't expect you to believe that but it's true nonetheless. How can you model the atmosphere accurately when scientists cannot model clouds in any realistic manner?

Yes I talk to some people that I wouldn't want to go near in real life, very rarely are people 100% wrong all the time. I can talk to most unless they turn abusive, then I return the favour with both barrels. You can do what you like with Joanie, my opinion is she is poison but I'll leave you to find out for yourself like you did with Snarla.

Denying means not accepting what scientists say? I don't know and I don't care. I believe humans contribute to global warming but aren't the cause of it, and that's the extent of my interest. Therefore the answer is no, I don't know about the amount of empirical evidence, CMIP5 and CMIP6. If you call some scientists "alarmists" that shows your bias, too. It doesn't sound like pure skepticism.

[cancel2 2022]

Denying means not accepting what scientists say? I don't know that and I don't care. I believe humans contribute to global warming but aren't the cause of it, and that's the extent of my interest. Therefore the answer is no, I don't know about the amount of empirical evidence, CMIP5 and CMIP6. If you call some scientists "alarmists" that shows your bias, too. It doesn't sound like pure skepticism.

So in actual fact we're not that far apart on the issue are we? You wouldn't know, because of political figures in the Left mainly, that it's a hotly contested issue. The science is not in the least bit settled and rather than saying sceptics they use the word denial deliberately to invoke echoes of Holocaust denial. The actual science does not support alarmism it's as simple as that, why is why they always use climate models rather than real life data. Anyway done now, won't bother you anymore on the subject.