Replies

Respectfully, jude... in calling John Calvin a "homosexual", you are giving an awful lot of credence to a Tabloid Catholic who, at best, basically accused John Calvin of being Sodomized by the Roman Catholics as an Adolescent (which doesn't say much for their Clergy, even if true at all).

I hope that, when you argue your first Trial Case, you do not intend to enter the front page of "Weekly World News" as your primary Evidence, and call Kitty Kelley as your first witness.

Just a suggestion...

best, OP

in calling John Calvin a "homosexual", you are giving an awful lot of credence to a Tabloid Catholic who, at best, basically accused John Calvin of being Sodomized by the Roman Catholics as an Adolescent (which doesn't say much for their Clergy, even if true at all).

I said "arguendo." I was arguing that, even if it were true, it should be excluded as irrelevant. It has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of his arguments.

I hope that, when you argue your first Trial Case, you do not intend to enter the front page of "Weekly World News" as your primary Evidence, and call Kitty Kelley as your first witness.

Actually, if a fact like this were proffered at trial, I would bolt out of my chair, shout, "Objection, irrelevant and unduly prejudicial!" and do my best to get it excluded (or at least convey my outrage to the jury). In reality, if I could see this coming, I would file a motion in limine before trial to ensure that it would be excluded. The argument I made would be before a judge, who would presumably be familiar with the rules of evidence and hopefully some logic, and not before a jury.