On Nov 29, 8:13*am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 8:10 AM:

...





As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your definition of proof,which relies upon the existence of a true
statement so that something else could neccesarily follow from it,
works just fine in this context. *Math need not apply. You're now
trying to convince readers that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
doesn't need to contain anything for which a true statement can be
made about it... you know, so some deduction can necessarily follow
from the statement. Good luck with your idea that people are as
stupid as you need them to be

In a court there is almost never proof...

In court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have
absoute proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt...
or any other kind of proof. You ready to change your position on
your statement YET?

LOL!

LOL!

You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a
mathematical proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is
required in a US court of law.

Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. *I *know*
you will fail. *You simply do not understand the difference.

**** you. *Why don't you answer his questions first.

I did answer your questions

There aren't any "questions" regarding the fact that you said you had
*no* proof (of any kind). What about it? Lemme guess... you're finally
ready to retract the statement?