On Nov 29, 10:00*am, Snit wrote:
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

.... this:

How you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt", yet. you've simultaneously admitted you don't have
a single true thing from which something else can necessarily follow.

You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
"evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" should even be considered to BE "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" when there has not been a one true thing
established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your
position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies
you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.