Lyndon Hood - Logi-to-the-shiz-ician, Lower Hutt
Thursday, December 08, 2005
This is just getting ridiculous. You'd think, with all the material in the police files, someone determined to find David Benson-Pope guilty wouldn't have to resort to sophistry.
But now there's all this hue and cry about whether 'not remembering' something is consistent with thinking it didn't happen.
What's the other option?
Let's suppose someone asks you about a particular event.
Let's suppose that you really do have no recollection of it.
If it's something you think you would remember if it had happened, you might say, "It didn't happen".
If it's something you consider implausable, you might say, "It didn't happen".
Of course if you were being unfailingly intellectually honest, you would in both cases say "I think it didn't happen" or just "I don't remember".
And yes, you might also say the latter if you felt it was something that could have happened and that you might have forgotten. Or you might say "I don't know".
All I'm saying is that not remembering and saying it didn't happen utterly consistent and since DBP hasn't backed down from either he hasn't - as far as this goes - been caught out.
If you think something didn't happen it goes without saying that you can't remember it.
I can't believe I felt the need to write that down.
The fact that a parliamentarian would bother trying that one on is another reason why the Privileges Committe would make a lousy court of law. Of course, if they're just trying to break him, i tprobably doesn't matter what shit they come up with.
Seeing as I've raised this - it also applies to the students' testimony. I'll say now that anything below is based on something other than the police reports because I haven't really read them.
First, in that saying it "didn't happen" amounts, in the circumstances, to saying you don't remember, but more assertively.
Second, in that anyone not remembering supports the contention that it didn't happen. It's the opposite of corroboration - the absence of evidence that (allowing for what follows) should be there.
Exceptions:
One: People could just say they don't remember to make the police go away.
Two: They might have actually forgotten. This of course hinges on the idea that such an event could actually be forgettable.
Those involved seem to agree that the tennis-ball thing - at least as initially presented in Parliament - would have been well out of the ordinary at Bayfield at the time. I get the impression word would have gone round the school like wildfire. You would have thought that people would remember if it happened.
On the other hand, there is the possibility of an actual incident, but less blantantly traumatic - something one could be in the same room as with some equanimity.
I do think a lot of people not remembering is very meaningful. Mind you, so is a lot of people independently remembering.
So there.
But now there's all this hue and cry about whether 'not remembering' something is consistent with thinking it didn't happen.
What's the other option?
Let's suppose someone asks you about a particular event.
Let's suppose that you really do have no recollection of it.
If it's something you think you would remember if it had happened, you might say, "It didn't happen".
If it's something you consider implausable, you might say, "It didn't happen".
Of course if you were being unfailingly intellectually honest, you would in both cases say "I think it didn't happen" or just "I don't remember".
And yes, you might also say the latter if you felt it was something that could have happened and that you might have forgotten. Or you might say "I don't know".
All I'm saying is that not remembering and saying it didn't happen utterly consistent and since DBP hasn't backed down from either he hasn't - as far as this goes - been caught out.
If you think something didn't happen it goes without saying that you can't remember it.
I can't believe I felt the need to write that down.
The fact that a parliamentarian would bother trying that one on is another reason why the Privileges Committe would make a lousy court of law. Of course, if they're just trying to break him, i tprobably doesn't matter what shit they come up with.
Seeing as I've raised this - it also applies to the students' testimony. I'll say now that anything below is based on something other than the police reports because I haven't really read them.
First, in that saying it "didn't happen" amounts, in the circumstances, to saying you don't remember, but more assertively.
Second, in that anyone not remembering supports the contention that it didn't happen. It's the opposite of corroboration - the absence of evidence that (allowing for what follows) should be there.
Exceptions:
One: People could just say they don't remember to make the police go away.
Two: They might have actually forgotten. This of course hinges on the idea that such an event could actually be forgettable.
Those involved seem to agree that the tennis-ball thing - at least as initially presented in Parliament - would have been well out of the ordinary at Bayfield at the time. I get the impression word would have gone round the school like wildfire. You would have thought that people would remember if it happened.
On the other hand, there is the possibility of an actual incident, but less blantantly traumatic - something one could be in the same room as with some equanimity.
I do think a lot of people not remembering is very meaningful. Mind you, so is a lot of people independently remembering.
So there.
