Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jerry Bergman's Failed Analogy!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    To: Nick Lally (creationfacts@...) From: Robert Baty (rlbaty@...) CC: diatheke2@... CC: fwepboyd@... CC: joestephen@... CC: seeevidence@... CC: temlakos@...
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Nick Lally (creationfacts@...)
      From: Robert Baty (rlbaty@...)
      CC: diatheke2@...
      CC: fwepboyd@...
      CC: joestephen@...
      CC: seeevidence@...
      CC: temlakos@...
      CC: jerrybergman30@...
      Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 09:54:15 -0500

      Subject: Jerry Bergman's Failed Analogy!

      Nick,

      While I am at it, I might as well add some thoughtful
      comments about the Jerry Bergman analogy effort
      regarding Kent Hovind that the CSHF is promoting.

      Jerry wrote, in part:

      > From: Jerry Bergman
      > To: Robert Baty
      > Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 15:59:50 -0800
      >
      > Subject: Kent Hovind
      >
      > To me this is like a policeman giving a man
      > a traffic ticket for doing 54 miles an hour
      > in a 55 MPH speed zone with the claim that
      > he was avoiding a ticket by driving just under
      > the speed limit, thus got the ticket.
      >
      > The fact is Kent withdrew the dollar amount
      > under the amount that would trigger an audit
      > just like the man who drove 54 miles an
      > hour to avoid a traffic ticket.

      Typically, analogies don't prove anything and where
      appropriate can help illustrate one or more point
      being attempted.

      In this case the analogy simply fails all the way around.

      Here are some of my thoughts as to why:

      1.

      Doing 54 is not a violation of the law.

      2.

      Doing 60 is a violation of the law.

      3.

      Withdrawing $10,000 or more in cash is
      not against the law.

      4.

      Withdrawing $10,000 or more in cash
      triggers a report, not an audit; an
      audit decision is the result of
      other facts and circumstances.

      5.

      "Structuring" a cash withdrawal is
      against the law.

      6.

      Driving 54 in respect of the law is
      NOT like "structuring" a cash withdrawal
      to evade the law; just the opposite, one
      being lawful and the other being unlawful.

      A number of analogies might be properly made that
      enlightens folks on Kent Hovinds egregious criminal
      conduct and career.

      Jerry Bergman's fails and it is most unfortunate
      that you have chosen a failed analogy to try and
      present an apologetics for Kent Hovind's criminal
      behavior, especially in light of your often made
      claim about an interest in presenting the truth.

      And so those are some of my thoughts on your addition
      of Jerry Bergman's analogy to your defense of the
      criminal behavior of Kent Hovind.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty

      ------------------------------------
      ------------------------------------
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.