posted on Apr, 27 2014 @ 06:06 PM
a reply to: JonButtonIII
(1) That the writers of the article frame the background of the interviewee in a certain way does not diminish the credibility of the Nathan. Nathan
didn't write the article.
I didnt say nathans credibility was in question. I said the article's credibility was.
Also, "lack of evidence" does not speak to the individual's credibility. Illogical.
Presenting an outlandish claim, then providing no evidence ABSOLUTELY DOES speak to a persons credibility. Burden of proof is ALWAYS on the
(2) Let's see your IMDB. Otherwise, if you can't provide evidence, you've now (under your weird "logic") completely lost credibility. Is this
where I should BWHAHAHA?
Soliciting personal information is against the TOS on ATS. Might want to remove that. On top of that, my IMDB is not relevant, other than that i used
it to show your claim, that he has directing credits, to be a total lie.
Now YOUR credibility is in question.
(3) Yes, it's more than sufficient for expert witness status. I can fax you my bar exam scores, if you like.
No, its not. A person with no directing experience would not qualify as an expert witness on filmmaking. Making on producing. Producers are rarely
even on set for filming. They has next to NOTHING to do with the actual filmmaking.
(4) The evidence is his professional opinion as someone well-versed in the industry. That's the definition of expert witness testimony--an opinion
given by someone in the know.
You could have just said he has none. Would have been a shorter sentence.