When someone thinks they're an attorney conducting cross examination, the thread can get derailed rather quickly.
I never thought someone would conduct an investigation involving events that have actually occurred.
A number of statements that you've made as facts, are not proven to be facts. Such as the one where you stated as a fact, that Richards and Laviolette were not talking to each other. And when asked to provide the facts to back it up, you responded with "I know what I know", and I have inside business and professional contacts. Those are the issues.
A number of statements that you've made as facts, are not proven to be facts.
If they aren't true, you have failed to do what you ask of me, prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver
Such as the one where you stated as a fact, that Richards and Laviolette were not talking to each other.
They were not speaking in the closing months of the 2010-11 season and through the playoffs. You have brought nothing to the table to disprove it. Just because you act like you're cross examining a witness and demanding proof, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver
And when asked to provide the facts to back it up, you responded with "I know what I know", and I have inside business and professional contacts. Those are the issues.
Besides my knowledge of this and other incidents there are others who have taken their knowledge and placed it in the public domain. It would be one thing if I was the only person on the planet with knowledge of this stuff but that isn't the case here.
If they aren't true, you have failed to do what you ask of me, prove it.
I haven't offered anything as fact. So I don't have to prove it. The burden of proof is on the person stating what is fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING
They were not speaking in the closing months of the 2010-11 season and through the playoffs. You have brought nothing to the table to disprove it. Just because you act like you're cross examining a witness and demanding proof, doesn't mean it isn't true.
A simple 3 second google search can do that. And provide direct quotes from the Coach himself. Now these comments are in quotes. So they aren't hearsay. This article was written on May 9 2011. Here are direct quotes from Laviolette himself. Not hearsay, and not rumored.
“That’s incorrect information,” Laviolette told CSNPhilly.com on Monday night. “I can’t control what guys write or say.
“If you ask me a question if we were talking at the end of the season, the answer is, ‘yes.’ I have a relationship with Mike and I think it is something we can work on over time.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by 35NW8ING
Besides my knowledge of this and other incidents there are others who have taken their knowledge and placed it in the public domain. It would be one thing if I was the only person on the planet with knowledge of this stuff but that isn't the case here.
Well if that isn't the case here, then how hard can it be to back your story up with facts. You just asked me to do so, and it took me all of 3 seconds to find direct quotes from a party involved that says that you are incorrect.
All I'm asking is for you to provide the facts. Not hearsay, not rumor, and not "I know what I know".
I haven't offered anything as fact. So I don't have to prove it. The burden of proof is on the person stating what is fact.
A simple 3 second google search can do that. And provide direct quotes from the Coach himself. Now these comments are in quotes. So they aren't hearsay. This article was written on May 9 2011. Here are direct quotes from Laviolette himself. Not hearsay, and not rumored.
“That’s incorrect information,” Laviolette told CSNPhilly.com on Monday night. “I can’t control what guys write or say.
“If you ask me a question if we were talking at the end of the season, the answer is, ‘yes.’ I have a relationship with Mike and I think it is something we can work on over time.”
Well if that isn't the case here, then how hard can it be to back your story up with facts. You just asked me to do so, and it took me all of 3 seconds to find direct quotes from a party involved that says that you are incorrect.
All I'm asking is for you to provide the facts. Not hearsay, not rumor, and not "I know what I know".
Yeah coaches and GM's never lie. You can rely on newspaper quotes if you like. You're the one questioning my posts like a defense attorney, yet are unable to disprove any of it. If you cant disprove it, maybe you shouldn't question it.
Instead of quoting people who are in a profession where lying is part of the job description, bring your own knowledge of these events to the table, that is if you have anything other than newspaper clippings.
Yeah coaches and GM's never lie. You can rely on newspaper quotes if you like. You're the one questioning my posts like a defense attorney, yet are unable to disprove any of it. If you cant disprove it, maybe you shouldn't question it.
Instead of quoting people who are in a profession where lying is part of the job description, bring your own knowledge of these events to the table, that is if you have anything other than newspaper clippings.
Thank you, your making my whole point. I don't have any knowledge personally about what went on. And never claimed that I did, unlike you who has claimed that you have. And if I did have it, I'd make dam sure I could prove what I would say if I was going to post it. And I would expect others to expect that from me, and if I can't produce it. Then I'd be labeled a BS artist.
I just gave you direct quotes from a person directly involved in the relationship with the parties in question. What have you given us? If your saying that Laviolette is lying, I'll again ask you the same thing. Prove that he is! Provide with facts to back it up, that he is lying.
Thank you, your making my whole point. I don't have any knowledge personally about what went on. And never claimed that I did, unlike you who has claimed that you have. And if I did have it, I'd make dam sure I could prove what I would say if I was going to post it. And I would expect others to expect that from me, and if I can't produce it. Then I'd be labeled a BS artist.
I just gave you direct quotes from a person directly involved in the relationship with the parties in question. What have you given us? If your saying that Laviolette is lying, I'll again ask you the same thing. Prove that he is! Provide with facts to back it up, that he is lying.
I've posted what I know, and others with the same knowledge have brought it into the public domain for consumption. You want to question it, yet fail to offer anything to disprove it.
Again, if I was the only person on the planet with knowledge of these events, I could see you, or anyone else questioning it. Unfortunately, when you challenge posters like you are doing with me, but are unable to disprove any of it, that's called spewing drivel.
You can provide all the direct quotes you want. The bottom line is coaches and GM's lie quite often. What are you going to ask next, prove to you that God really exists. You're starting to sound like a flat-earther.
I've posted what I know, and others with the same knowledge have brought it into the public domain for consumption. You want to question it, yet fail to offer anything to disprove it.
Again, if I was the only person on the planet with knowledge of these events, I could see you, or anyone else questioning it. Unfortunately, when you challenge posters like you are doing with me, but are unable to disprove any of it, that's called spewing drivel.
You can provide all the direct quotes you want. The bottom line is coaches and GM's lie quite often. What are you going to ask next, prove to you that God really exists. You're starting to sound like a flat-earther.
I provided proof from a person involved in the relationship, that what you've said about it is false. From an actual eye witness. He was there and present. But you say he's lying and your explanation for that is well Coaches lie. You say you practice law. If you were cross examining a witness and trying to impeach him how would you do it? By telling the Jury he's lying well because people lie. Think they'd buy it?
I've asked you countless times to provide this factual information that you say is public knowledge, and that other people have this knowledge. So how hard can it be for you to produce it? You asked me to provide contrary evidence. I did so. Who do you think the jury would believe here? Okay so Coaches and GM's lie often. Do they ever tell the truth? So prove that he is lying here! You've posted so much slander about individuals without offering a shred of proof of it. And now your moving towards personal remarks.
I provided proof from a person involved in the relationship, that what you've said about it is false. From an actual eye witness. He was there and present. But you say he's lying and your explanation for that is well Coaches lie. You say you practice law. If you were cross examining a witness and trying to impeach him how would you do it? By telling the Jury he's lying well because people lie. Think they'd buy it?
I've asked you countless times to provide this factual information that you say is public knowledge, and that other people have this knowledge. So how hard can it be for you to produce it? You asked me to provide contrary evidence. I did so. Who do you think the jury would believe here? Okay so Coaches and GM's lie often. Do they ever tell the truth? So prove that he is lying here! You've posted so much slander about individuals without offering a shred of proof of it. And now your moving towards personal remarks.
Are you saying Lavy has never lied? As far as impeaching a witness goes, no attorney would risk his case by putting people like Lavy or Homer on the stand. Impeaching them would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
All you have done is offer the quote of someone who has lied in the past. Real credible stuff there.
The reason that what I have offered is public knowledge should be clearly evident to you. No one, including yourself, claims that I'm the first person who has ever provided such information. It has been in the public domain long before I brought it here, therefore it is public knowledge.
Are you saying Lavy has never lied? As far as impeaching a witness goes, no attorney would risk his case by putting people like Lavy or Homer on the stand. Impeaching them would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
All you have done is offer the quote of someone who has lied in the past. Real credible stuff there.
I didn't come close to saying that Laviolette never lied. If impeaching them is like shooting fish in a barrel, then go ahead and do so. On here. That's what I'm asking you to do. Prove that Laviolette is lying about being on speaking terms with Richards at the end of the Season. If it's public knowledge and easy to do so, then all you have to do it is do it.
And are you now saying that the Coach that the Flyers have employed is not a credible person and is a liar? And anything he says is unreliable?
So far all I've read on here is "I know what I know", and all Coaches lie, so Laviolette is lying.
This is getting to the point where if it doesn't at least become somewhat reasonable, I'm going to move on. I have a hard time seeing that this is how an attorney would approach making a case. Don't have to have a law degree to see that.
I didn't come close to saying that Laviolette never lied. If impeaching them is like shooting fish in a barrel, then go ahead and do so. On here. That's what I'm asking you to do. Prove that Laviolette is lying about being on speaking terms with Richards at the end of the Season. If it's public knowledge and easy to do so, then all you have to do it is do it.
And are you now saying that the Coach that the Flyers have employed is not a credible person and is a liar? And anything he says is unreliable?
So far all I've read on here is "I know what I know", and all Coaches lie, so Laviolette is lying.
This is getting to the point where if it doesn't at least become somewhat reasonable, I'm going to move on. I have a hard time seeing that this is how an attorney would approach making a case. Don't have to have a law degree to see that.
You're the one who is challenging my posts while offering nothing to disprove any of what I have posted. All you have is offered quotes from someone where lying to the public is part of their job description.
I don't approach posting here as having anything to do with making a case. You on the other hand want to act like a trier of fact.
You should move on. You took your best shot, brought nothing to the table, and failed to disprove anything.
As Gene Hart used to say, "Good night, good hockey."
You're the one who is challenging my posts while offering nothing to disprove any of what I have posted. All you have is offered quotes from someone where lying to the public is part of their job description.
I don't approach posting here as having anything to do with making a case. You on the other hand want to act like a trier of fact.
You should move on. You took your best shot, brought nothing to the table, and failed to disprove anything.
As Gene Hart used to say, "Good night, good hockey."
I think after all of this, that I absolutely proved what I set out to prove. And that's that you don't have any proof of anything that you posted as fact. I gave you a direct quote from the Coach that what was reported about the relationship was incorrect. It then becomes a case of whether you believe it or not. If you want to say you don't believe it, that's fine. Your perogative and your right to that opinion. But you haven't done that. You've offered what you posted as fact. That is the issue. And I have challenged you multiple times to provide the evidence that makes what you say, a fact. Still hasn't been done. And that proves my one main point. That what you posted isn't fact. Offer it as an opinion, and what you think happened all you want. But it's not a fact. You call the Coach a liar, but fail to offer anything that remotely supports that. Only that Coaches lie.
I made my point a long time ago. Every rely only reinforces it.
I think after all of this, that I absolutely proved what I set out to prove. And that's that you don't have any proof of anything that you posted as fact. I gave you a direct quote from the Coach that what was reported about the relationship was incorrect. It then becomes a case of whether you believe it or not. If you want to say you don't believe it, that's fine. Your perogative and your right to that opinion. But you haven't done that. You've offered what you posted as fact. That is the issue. And I have challenged you multiple times to provide the evidence that makes what you say, a fact. Still hasn't been done. And that proves my one main point. That what you posted isn't fact. Offer it as an opinion, and what you think happened all you want. But it's not a fact. You call the Coach a liar, but fail to offer anything that remotely supports that. Only that Coaches lie.
I made my point a long time ago. Every rely only reinforces it.
You fail to do all of the things yourself that you ask me to do. At the end of the day you still haven't proven anything after challenging what I have posted.
When you're the one doing the questioning, yet fail to disprove what you've questioned, you lose.
You fail to do all of the things yourself that you ask me to do. At the end of the day you still haven't proven anything after challenging what I have posted.
When you're the one doing the questioning, yet fail to disprove what you've questioned, you lose.
How do I lose when I was the only guy who offered a direct quote from someone who was actually involved in the relationship. That is the evidence I offer to the Jury on that issue. First hand eye witness testimony. Not hearsay, rumor, speculation, or conjecture. Now do a cross on it. You said it would be shooting fish in a barrel. I'm waiting for it. There has to be more then just Coaches lie, so he's lying.
What evidence have you offered? I've been waiting for days for it.
How do I lose when I was the only guy who offered a direct quote from someone who was actually involved in the relationship. That is the evidence I offer to the Jury on that issue. First hand eye witness testimony. Not hearsay, rumor, speculation, or conjecture. Now do a cross on it. You said it would be shooting fish in a barrel. I'm waiting for it. There has to be more then just Coaches lie, so he's lying.
What evidence have you offered? I've been waiting for days for it.
And I'll wait just as many days for you to prove these things are not true.
Again, you're the one questioning my posts so either prove these events didn't occur or you lose. Once you start challenging what someone says the burden of proof is on you. Since you think you're a lawyer look at it this way.
You're the plaintiff here since you have questioned the truthfulness of the events described. All you have done is put one person on the stand who lies as part of his duties as a head coach.
Everything I have posted is public knowledge. I'm hardly the first person to bring this information to light. It has been in the public domain for at least a year. If I lined up everyone with knowledge of these events, the line would be city blocks long. All you would have is Homer and Lavy denying everything.
That's why you lose. You brought the action by challenging my posts, and proved nothing. All you did was regurgitate a newspaper quote. The burden of proof isn't on the defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver
Last chance or I'm done here.
You should have been done a long time ago. You're getting nowhere because you can't bring anything to refute these events are true. You want to claim they are not, but can't prove it. Your use of deflection only weakens your position.
Again, you're the one questioning my posts so either prove these events didn't occur or you lose. Once you start challenging what someone says the burden of proof is on you. Since you think you're a lawyer look at it this way.
You're the plaintiff here since you have questioned the truthfulness of the events described. All you have done is put one person on the stand who lies as part of his duties as a head coach.
Everything I have posted is public knowledge. I'm hardly the first person to bring this information to light. It has been in the public domain for at least a year. If I lined up everyone with knowledge of these events, the line would be city blocks long. All you would have is Homer and Lavy denying everything.
That's why you lose. You brought the action by challenging my posts, and proved nothing. All you did was regurgitate a newspaper quote. The burden of proof isn't on the defense.
I most certainly met my burden of proof. I proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that what you offered as fact, isn't fact. And your failure to provide any facts is my case. The rumors and speculation are certainly in the public domain. No one has ever argued to the contrary. But what you've failed to accept and failed to prove is that's all it is, is rumor and speculation. That is the entire point.
And you offered your posts as opinion, I might disagree with that opinion, but I wouldn't question the validity of it. But again, you didn't do that. You offered it as fact. I proved beyond a shadow of doubt, that you can't offer any factual evidence to support what you post as fact. I'm not asking you to line up everyone with first hand knowledge of the events. I'm asking you to line up one person. Start there! Why can't you do it?
I've questioned the truthfullness of the events as you described it, not with the weak stance of Coaches lie, but with the fact that you can't prove any of it.
Refute the testimony of the eyewitness I placed on the stand! I'm challenging you to do it! I'm even trying to talk in lawyer terms to appeal to your claimed profession.
