-
The Latest Talk
judyw on Update porterville63139 on Update Donna Tharge on Update neconservative on Update Patricia on Update tmbj1064 on Update butterdezillion on MCPD Responses Indicate Fuddy…
 | judyw on Update |
 | porterville63139 on Update |
| Donna Tharge on Update | |
 | neconservative on Update |
 | Patricia on Update |
 | tmbj1064 on Update |
 | butterdezillion on MCPD Responses Indicate Fuddy… |
6 Comments
There is no such thing as indirect confirmation. Health departments/police departments, etc. do not operate this was.
You can’t make a deduction about what was said by what was NOT said….but keep hope alive, I guess.
Jay, if 36,000+ Google references using “indirect confirmation” in a variety of contexts will not convince you then nothing will. I’ll let your comment post because it’s not an ad hominem but you’re just wrong on this. I’ve shown you, you won’t accept it, there’s nothing left to say.
The point is YOU don’t have any indirect confirmation of anything.
This is the only “Nyeah” comment that I’m going to allow to post. I’ll spare everyone the other 6 similar comments you have submitted.
Life is too short to waste time with
“Did too!”
“Did not!”
“Did too!” Etc ad nauseum.
> HRS 338-13 references HRS 338-16 and HRS 338-17, which deal specifically with LATE AND AMENDED BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
And 338-18 which deals with access. So your argument is because provision A references provisions B, C and D, whenever someone refers to A, he is automatically “indirectly” referring to B? Quite a stretch, don’t you think?
Terri K asked for access to public health statistics records, which is the subject of HRS 338-18. She never asked for a certified copy of anything, which is the subject of HRS 338-13.
So why did Tsukiyama refer to HRS 338-13?
You tell me.