Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 9:57 AM:

....
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 want me to explain, again, concepts to you that you have shown you
simply do not have the capacity to understand:

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

The fact is the difference between those two is completely baffling to you.
Oh well.



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]