On Nov 29, 8:45*am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 8:40 AM:

* Proof

Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind). What
about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing it
already.

LOL!

* Proof: as

.... per your definition, read:

"a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true
something else necessarily follows from it".

Being that you said you didn't have any proof at all you are obviously
admitting that you didn't have one true statement from which something
else could necessarily follow (math need not apply). You wrote this,
yet, you don't seem to agree with it.

n that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

If you state (as you did) that your "evidence" doesn't contain a
single true statement from which something else could necessarily
follow... that'd create "a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any sane,
honest and honorable person.

Are you still trying to sell your other goofy argument that conflicts
with the western model of justice?

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

--
refute - to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute
--

Is your new argument going to be that an "argument" in a "court room"
isn't the same thing as "a claim, charge, allegation, etc" ? Or that
when a case involving a guilt allegation is dismissed for lack of any
proof that the "claim, charge, allegation, etc" it hasn't been
'denied' by the court? How do these things work in your mind, Snit?