1.)It wasn't really a long post
2.)Well, which is why I wrote "likely", not is". Being that if the complaints concerned certain procedures and treatments, that signs of such would be visible on examination
3.)You don't really seem to understand the nature of moral and ethics. They are derived from facts, not facts themselves
4.)No, eyewitness accounts would be "factual" accounts of the event
5.)Which is why I mentioned professional and ethical obligations ...
6.)I can't even make sense of this. But I am clearly asserting they had a professional and ethical obligation to report it themselves
7.)actually your own definition contradicts you
". Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor."
rumor is generally understood as second hand information. Information that isn't accounted by a direct witness
" Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony."
The above, which is more applicable, also makes that clear
8.)No one claimed it was, and such really has nothing to do with them reporting such complaints to a proper agency, who would investigate the matter. Not merely declare his guilt based on such a report
9.) No, an eyewitness report is not hearsay. That is even made clear in your provided definition
1.) longer than it ever needs to be since the facts i stated wont change and you want to discuss somethign i never said
2.) that MIGHT be true but again, no evidence of that. but i agree if there was FACTUAL evidence something more should have been done. Currently we dont have that
3.)I understand them fine, i understand you are presenting your OPINION of what yu think PPs morals and ethics should and nothing else.
You seem to think i should just simply agree with your opinion. I dont not currently as per the fact that we have.
4.) no they are not as the dictionary proves you wrong :shrug: its hearsay.
Hey everybody Dr, chuckles punched me in the arm, i seen it with my own two eyes. is that factual? i claim to seen it
5.) yes you did but yet you havent provided anything that says your opinion is factually right?
by all means if you can provided something concrete that says "verbal complaints" need to be reported then again, im on board, PP is at least in violation of protocol.
But until then i can jump onto what seems like a witch hunt in my opinion.
6.) which you have yet to define, you are guessing what those obligations are as far as i can tell.
and it means what you are trying to debate has nothing to do with my original OP that you quoted but this isnt anything new for you, its just your style, im also not knocking you for it either, dont take it that way, its just something ive seen you do many times.
I make a point about a and b, you replay sorta talking about A and B but then ask all types of questions about C.
must be just your want or need to debate :shrug: no biggie
if you are still confused what that means is you are debating whether they should have reported it based on morals and opinions even though it was just complaints. I couldnt care less about that, what i said was two facts. The thread title is wrong/mislead currently and theres no evidence that PP factually knew anything besides there were complaints.
7.) no its not a contradiction me at all LMAO
and like i said "law" doesnt apply, PP is not a court room. SO you are wrong, what the ladies said is hearsay :shrug:
8.) which is exactly why as far as PP its concerned its factually hearsay as support by the definition of the word :shrug:
9.) it is in this instance as already proven by definition no matter how you tried to spin the definition and failed.
PP heard what the ladis said and it might not be true, thats hearsay
hearsay n - definition in American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionary Online
information you have heard that might or might not be true:
as far as PP is concerned theres no reason to take the complaints as fact, none