Smouldering Stoat wrote:
shootist wrote:A bag of whatifs contains an infinite variety of possibilities.
Yes, that was my point.
Was there any purpose to making your point?
Did it in any way, shape or form advance the debate, or was it no more than a deliberate attempt to be an irritating little tit?
shootist wrote:A person capable of communicating by the spoken word would get short shrift from a judge for asking to be questioned and to give answers in writing.
That would surely depend upon the reasons for the request. OP has suggested such a need, but is not clear of the reasons. Nor need he be here, it would be between him and the judge.
However, as I have suggested before, if it were not for the fact that it is slower, and everyone is sat in court waiting for it, this seems to me to be a generally better way to do things. People place too much stock in face to face encounters: these confer the advantage to the charisma over the content.
But if the need arose, for instance a person but recently struck deaf and dumb. it could, and would, be done.
Can you suggest a better way than in writing?
Take me to your lizard...