Doomsday101
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 107,762
- Reaction score
- 39,034
I don't think the alcohol was a big issue, cheating on your wife with a crazy woman on the other hand is a bad mix.
Oh God. You're one of those. I really don't care to waste my time debating you on such a ridiculous proposition.Vtwin;2852492 said:No, I don't think that. Just like you don't get the same mind altering affects from pot and alcohol. Or pot and cocaine. Or Alcohol and cocaine. Or Meth and heroin. etc etc etc.
And again, you are wrong. Nowhere near "everybody" puts in on a higher scale. I'll agree that many, mostly ill informed by by a century of scary propaganda may put in on a higher scale but I bet in some circles "everybody" would disagree completely.
Technicalities don't change the fact that it's relevant information. I may, as an example, argue that it's more prejudicial than relevant, but that doesn't change the fact that it's relevant, nor does it decrease the relevancy.You are either choosing to ignore or are missing my point on relevancy. I don't know what type of law you practice but if you go to trial you surely have argued to supress or defending against the argument to supress what is, to an impartial observer, a relevant piece of evidence because of some technical issue. Point being, relevancy is in the eye of the attorney and can be based less on the truth then on the desired outcome.
peplaw06;2852511 said:Oh God. You're one of those. I really don't care to waste my time debating you on such a ridiculous proposition.
Technicalities don't change the fact that it's relevant information. I may, as an example, argue that it's more prejudicial than relevant, but that doesn't change the fact that it's relevant, nor does it decrease the relevancy.
The word relevance has a very broad definition in the legal world. There's really no doubt that this is relevant information.