Are all trolls bad at math?
On Nov 29, 10:22*am, Snit wrote:
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!
No one can make you move past 2003.
|