Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (49124)	6/5/2002 10:04:01 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

The question remains as to which version in more believable. Yes, that is the question. I tend to have to reflect on something from my memory for a while before it all comes back. At least I think that's what's happening. But perhaps it's not. We can't know for sure. I have had too many experiences where, for example, someone at the office asked me a question about an issue and my first reaction is that I never heard of it, but it turns out that I was very involved in it to the point of having reports on the subject with my signature. After a while it all comes back, or so it seems, but my first reaction is to draw a blank. We need to learn from these incidents and be a bit humble about what we "know" at least as it pertains to taking actions that affect others.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (49124)	6/5/2002 10:06:33 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

A classic way of impeaching a witness is to confront them with their version of an event when they were first interviewed, compared to their testimony months later at a trial. This only happens with incompetent trial counsel. Preparation of witnesses for trial requires a review of previous statements.