"Melvyn hw dare u lie 2 me. cme back hme u better explain 2 me. i swear i stop ur studying in australia. u make mom believe in u and happy 4 nothing."

-- This, is Mom playing nice.

whee

The leader is Lee.
Freedom of speech is qualified.
One party rule.
Citizen control is a must: We decide who you marry, when, how and why.
Privacy, is a fallacy.
The only natural resource we can exploit is the people.
Opposing views are tolerated, but discouraged.
The leader, is always right.

And no, I'm not talking about Singapore.

Cheryl is a slut.

Cheryl slept with Peter.

It was said that Cheryl had been getting close with Peter over the course of the month.

Someone witnessed Cheryl putting her hand on Peter's thigh.

There were sounds of someone entering Peter's room one night.

It had to have been Cheryl.

Cheryl must have slept with Peter.

Peter was not Cheryl's first.

-----------------

The trouble with making a judgement:

What is relevant? Is it only facts that are of deal directly with the event that has occurred? When is the line of remoteness drawn with such facts? The question then turns upon the matters that could legitimately be considered as facts. What are facts, and what remains, for lack of a better term, 'hearsay'?

Who is credible enough for the provision of such facts? Is it the person who viewed the event unfolding, thus giving him/her credibility because of his/her first-hand view of the event? Or is it the person who has a sufficient academic history to be an authority on the event, and events similar to what has happened?


The above scenario involving Cheryl, Peter, and supposedly the people who watched and talked about Cheryl, is of course fictional. Nevertheless, such situations are familiar.

In making decisions about another, how often do we depend upon the testimony of a third party, one who claims to know?