My Dad used to take me to ball games- and a baseball game in perfect weather is wonderful- even tho I am not a fan. Weird, huh?
We have several cats- one considers herself to be mine (or the other was around) and she likes to sleep next to me, over the covers. And there is a big white fully boy who is very affectionate, who sleeps with one or the other of us, the same area.
“I feel badly” when you mean “I feel bad” – I’m going to think you meant something else, and am going to be waiting for the rest of the sentence, e.g. “I feel badly about not having fed the cat on time.”
– I don’t think I’ve ever heard somebody say “happily” for “happy”. Maybe I just haven’t noticed, and so remained happily ignorant that it was happening.
“I feel badly” and “I feel poorly” feel like they are more British than American. No I don’t have examples only a feeling. Happily in that context feels very wrong.
As I understand it, “poorly” is an adjective in British English.
My highschool English teacher explained the difference between “bad” and “badly” like this:
A young couple were out on a date. They went back to her place and things weren’t going well. He tried to apologise and said “I feel badly”. She replied “Yes, THAT’s the problem!”
I dunno. I’m an American and use “…he chose…poorly…” all the time since Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
And in that context it’s an adverb (modifying the verb “chose”).
The Brits use it as an adjective meaning “unwell.”
Well, turning into a dusty skeleton does sound like you are feeing unwell.
In Britland, badly and happily are adverbs only. Poorly can be an adverb or an adjective.
I didn’t know about the Brits, but poorly is an unremarkable, everyday word in my (Southern) American dialect.
“I was feeling a mite(might?) poorly this morning, but I’m much better now.”
I do believe the cat sleeping poll is flawed. There are no options for wherever it wants to or up at night with the zoomies.
The poll asks you what’s the closest the cat can sleep with you. So if you’re OK with the cat sleeping “wherever it wants”, then you should select the first response, which is the closest possible position.
Witness poll. Did not answer, because it’s asking the wrong question. The accuracy of human memory which I already consider to be extremely questionable is, by the poll itself, equally supported by both sides. So the evaluation should entirely be based on the credibility of the witness, and the verifiability that that they were actually present and capable of observing the events in question.
In addition, how many. Ten independent witnesses are a lot more reliable than three who listen to each other’s testimony.
And it’s going to make a difference to me what the events were, and what the relationship was of the persons involved – someone’s claim to recognize someone they knew well, for instance, seems to me stronger than their claim to recognize a stranger. Also, someone who can bring testimony that they’re a superrecognizer is different from someone known to be partially face blind.
Yes. I was contacted by an insurance company about an accident I had witnessed about a year later, and I had to apologize and tell them that I could not remember reliably enough to be useful. Had they contacted me the next week, I would have been fine. I could remember that it was a white car (I think) and a bus, and which intersection, and that one of them (I’d guess the car) was turning left… I think. But not, for example, who was going which way, nor how many people were in the car. My husband, however, remembered the details just fine.
In general if the crime was a long time ago, and the only evidence is witness memories- that is by definition- “reasonable doubt”. I want some DNA, some physical evidence, etc.
Yes, this.
I understood the question not to be who you side with on the case itself, for which there has obviously not been sufficient information provided, but who you side with on whether eyewitness memory should be considered reliable.
But then why frame it in a trial. Where the answer is either, “it depends, but not on those witnesses”, or “there is reasonable doubt, due to lack of physical evidence and passage of time”.