29-11-2010, 04:57 PM
posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
|
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 137
|
|
Are all trolls bad at math?
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 9:34 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 9:30 AM:
Steve Carroll wrote:
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
LOL!
You *still* are confusing two concepts
So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. you have simultaneously admitted
that you don't have a single true statement from which something else
can necessarily follow. How's that work?
If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
explain your other position:
"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit
LOL!
--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch
|