Too often. If we have a firm position, and we are faced with a massive body of data, and the data dumped into Rossi v. Darden was massive, we will scan over it looking for “facts of interest.” If we are not careful, and some are not at all careful, we will pick facts that appear to confirm our prior views. It’s called “confirmation bias.”
I’ve pointed out an example in How Planet Rossi reads fact. Here is another from the same user, same deposition.
Remember the mis-matched water meter serial number FUD that was pushed on all of us here? As if this was proof of fraud?
All just one big mistake by Murray. 215-03, pages 263-264.
This was classic. I’ve called it trolling, based on the actual meaning of “trolling.” Even though I do think IHFB is “sincere.” Nevertheless, he makes statements that are evidence free, or that don’t actually match the evidence, if it is cited. Naturally, IHFB doesn’t link to the document and this is a huge PDF file, but at least it is there. However, IHFB is actually comparing two alleged facts. One is what is in the deposition and the other is what was “pushed on all of us here”? That is largely meaningless without any actual citation or quotation, but trolls are not interested in evidenced and sober discussion, and IHFB expects to be attacked.
I’m not — yet — looking for the old discussion, because it could easily be buried in mountains of drek. The one who claims it is such and so should much more easily be able to find it, assuming it exists. (What I’ve seen way too many times is that those older discussions are presented with an astonishing level of warp. but maybe.)
However, I can look at the deposition at the point cited. And it’s text, having been produced by the reporter, so I can easily quote it.
·7· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Now, turning, sir, to document page,
·8· ·bates number Industrial Heat_FPL-000044.
·9· · · · A.· · 44, uh-huh.
10· · · · Q.· · Okay.· You got that?
11· · · · A.· · Yeah.
12· · · · Q.· · Okay.· Looking at the top of the page, it
13· ·purports to be the reading for January 1, 2015?
14· · · · A.· · Yes.
15· · · · Q.· · Meter Number L0556058707?
16· · · · A.· · Uh-huh.
17· · · · Q.· · Okay.· I’d like to now ask you to flip to the
18· ·last page, which is Industrial Heat_FPL-000053.· And
19· ·this purports to be the meter reading on March 1, 2016?
20· · · · A.· · Yes.
21· · · · Q.· · And it’s got Meter Number L0556058707?
22· · · · A.· · Yes.
23· · · · Q.· · Okay.· You told me, sir, that the meter
24· ·number had changed?
25· · · · A.· · Yeah.· I believe that I had seen that in the
·1· ·data, but I don’t know that this is all of the data.· I,
·2· ·and I could be wrong.
·3· · · · Q.· · Okay.· But, sir, this, you would agree, even
·4· ·if it’s not all the data, this is the data between
·5· ·January 1, 2015 —
·6· · · · A.· · Yes.
·7· · · · Q.· · — and March 1, 2016?
·8· · · · A.· · Uh-huh.
·9· · · · Q.· · Which encompasses the entire —
10· · · · A.· · The date.
11· · · · Q.· · — test period?
12· · · · A.· · Test period, yes.
13· · · · Q.· · So the entire test period, at least according
14· ·to this document, the same meter was used?
15· · · · A.· · Yes.· It appears, yes.
16· · · · Q.· · Okay.· So what information did you look at to
17· ·indicate the meter had changed?
18· · · · A.· · I don’t know if it was the data before this
19· ·or after, or maybe I was just mistaken.
20· · · · Q.· · Okay.· And you, you’re not testifying at all
21· ·as to the propriety of that information, whether it was
22· ·done properly, properly recorded or otherwise?
23· · · · A.· · No, I am not.
Rossi’s attorney is playing “gotcha.” This is a deposition. The witness is a human being. The attorney presents him with a possible contradiction. To know if it is an actual contradiction could take research and study. However, does this actually show an error? It shows a possible error, which Murray acknowledges. IHFB turns that into a proof of prior FUD, but was are not looking at what was prior. IHFB is reading what he wants to see. He has his own reasons, to be sure, specifically his own recollections and his past impressions. I’m not saying he is “wrong.” But his claim here will only increase acrimonious debate, and that is what trolls do. I have not yet read ensuing discussion, so I don’t know what will actually occur. I also have not done the research to attempt to find the prior facts and discussion. However, a little I can easily do.
“Meter” occurs in the deposition 201 times, and the technical term for that is “frikkin'”, i.e., it occurs 201 frikking times. Not terribly helpful, and I don’t want to search all day. Glancing through the deposition, there is also a frikkin’ lot of information there. My smart-ass comment is, enough information that if the paper is collected, and ignited, it would fry a certain Italian goose.
I do find mention of the specific flow meter, dep page 334, but this is later in the deposition. From early testimony, Murray could be an expert on flow meters. This is, of course, the testimony that Rossi is attempting to strike. (and that is why we see the whole deposition, that was important for that motion). The same with the IH expert, Smith. We have the whole thing, not just cherry-picked excerpts. These are Hail Mary passes, desperate attempts to find a way to prevail, when it is looking … frikkin’ difficult. That word again.
I notice Murray’s answers with regard to meeting West and conversations with Fabiani, whom Rossi apparently threw under the bus, freaking him out so badly that he destroyed his records, the ones that he had promised to provide to IH.
And I could go on and on. If I want to cherry-pick, I could prove almost anything I wanted to prove. Or at least appear to do so. I’m not interested in that. My interest in life is Reality. Always. And Reality is not some interpretation, it is only known, to the extent that it can be known, through presence, and being present to information without tossing “each dream into the ditch of what each one means” (Bob Dylan) is an aspect of that.
Being human, I have “occurrings.” I disclose them, often.
I told the stuffed shirt — blouse, actually — at my child’s high school, last Friday, exactly what I thought of her utterly disparaging and condescending comments to me. Daughter was worried that this might have caused some problem, but at the same time was planning on giving them a piece of her own mind Monday– for the same reasons.
So maybe she’ll be kicked out. Or not. (I know the legal boundaries and say within them. She may be exploring the territory.) And I have no opinion as to what is “best,” except that putting up with assholes or the female equivalent is not necessarily conducive to future happiness. Rather, freedom is crucial (and that includes actually resolving disputes instead of just yelling). For me, it includes trusting my daughter. She wants to be there, she will choose her own actions. She also knows she has choices, other choices, and she knows that she is responsible for the consequences of her choices.