An obstetrician's opinion

[CivilDiscourse]

You have had experience but that, in and of itself, does not automatically and unquestioningly guarantee that you are in any way competent.

I am not accusing you of incompetence I am simply noting that citing experience as a justification for competency may not necessarily be either credible or conclusive.

So what makes your opinion maker competent?

[Gondwanaland]

You have had experience but that, in and of itself, does not automatically and unquestioningly guarantee that you are in any way competent.

I am not accusing you of incompetence I am simply noting that citing experience as a justification for competency may not necessarily be either credible or conclusive.

Okay: the clueless twit you quoted in the OP who showed she is either a liar or doesn't have a clue what she was talking about, is much less likely to be competent. There's a pretty good chance she is not. How about that?

[Cow Poke]

Not near as much as you overall but I've been involved as an expert witness in a LOT (like, over 150) of civil cases. I'm a geological engineer so get called in as an expert witness on all sorts of cases especially ones that involve a home or business that was lied to about the area and its risk of rockfall, slump, etc., things like that. Did end up as expert witness in one criminal case, with a negligent manslaughter charge with a poorly maintained dam.

But yeah I suspect even I have a good deal more experience in basic law, civil cases, etc. Than H-A

Fact is - anybody with even ONE TENTH the experience you have would note the glaring errors in both Dr Karvorkian's and H_A's goofy distortions (or lies) about the Texas Heartbeat Bill.

[Gondwanaland]

Fact is - anybody with even ONE TENTH the experience you have would note the glaring errors in both Dr Karvorkian's and H_A's goofy distortions (or lies) about the Texas Heartbeat Bill.

To be honest, even a simple layman with basic reading comprehension and an eye for detail could pick that out.

[Cow Poke]

To be honest, even a simple layman with basic reading comprehension and an eye for detail could pick that out.

Well, yeah, but I'm considering you-know-who.

And even if they couldn't pick that out, if you explained it to anybody with a brain, they'd say, "oh, yeah - that makes sense".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You've tried that one before.

Your appeals to status may have an impact on others, but they fail with me.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect an ignorant to "get it" that somebody who as a tremendous amount of experience in Texas law and Texas courts just MIGHT be more informed than a NYC abortionist who outright lies about the Texas law.

Might being the operative word.

And you probably ignored the part where I actually had dinner Tuesday night with lawyers from the Office of Attorney General of Texas where we discussed this case.

Since when does having dinner with an advocate give another person competence in legal expertise?

If you want to put your money where your mouth is why not provide us all with a detailed account [I hope you made notes] of your exchanges with regard to this law and its potential impact on citizens in Texas.

[CivilDiscourse]

Your appeals to status may have an impact on others, but they fail with me.


Might being the operative word.

Since when does having dinner with an advocate give another person competence in legal expertise?

If you want to put your money where your mouth is why not provide us all with a detailed account [I hope you made notes] of your exchanges with regard to this law and its potential impact on citizens in Texas.

So, why does your appeal to the status of your proxu opinion carry water?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So, why does your appeal to the status of your proxu opinion carry water?

I have made no appeal to her status.

[rogue06]

Is that likely?

As likely as many of the scenarios that you've fabricated

[CivilDiscourse]

I have made no appeal to her status.

Sure you have. You've argued that the OP's status makes her opinion worthwhile in pretty much the same way you declare cow-pokes is not.

[rogue06]

Yeah, the fundamentals are all the same - "just the facts, ma'am", and you actually have to have process, procedure, rules of evidence, solid presentation....

And judges tend to have very little tolerance for misrepresentations, duplicity, folks who think they're too cool for school or clever and want to play games.

Right or wrong, judges tend to run their courts like a kingdom and tend to run a tight ship (ah the smell of mixed metaphors in the morning)

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Sure you have. You've argued that the OP's status makes her opinion worthwhile in pretty much the same way you declare cow-pokes is not.

She is a qualified medical professional with experience of high risk pregnancies.

[rogue06]

H_A as a judge: What qualifications do you have that makes you an expert in this area.


Expert Witness: I have a PhD in the pertinent field and wrote my dissertation on this very subject. Since then I've written over 20 peer-reviewed papers on this topic and have taught a post-graduate class on it for the last decade at one of the nation's top universities.

Your appeals to status may have an impact on others, but they fail with me.

[Cow Poke]

Your appeals to status may have an impact on others, but they fail with me.

You are also immune to truth and logic.

Since when does having dinner with an advocate give another person competence in legal expertise?

It wasn't the dinner, moron, it was the actual discussion of the law with the people who will be charged with administering it.

If you want to put your money where your mouth is why not provide us all with a detailed account [I hope you made notes] of your exchanges with regard to this law and its potential impact on citizens in Texas.

So you can ignore it and spew forth more stupidity?

You have been shown the actual law, and you still refuse to acknowledge that Dr Karvorkian is grossly misrepresenting it.

[Cow Poke]

So, why does your appeal to the status of your proxu opinion carry water?

Confirmation bias.