Thread: Are all trolls bad at math?
View Single Post
  #28   Report Post  
Old 29-11-2010, 05:22 PM posted to alt.motorcycles,alt.usenet.kooks,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.gardens
Snit Snit is offline
external usenet poster
  
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 75
Default Are all trolls bad at math?
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 10:19 AM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
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, 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.

... this:

Your below comments just serve to prove me right - you *still* do not
understand the difference between the two concepts.

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'.

LOL!



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote