29-11-2010, 06:56 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, 10:19 am, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish"
BigCrotch@SmallFish wrote:
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
... 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'.
LOL!
Funny 'ha ha' or.... ?
"... he is morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty" -
Snit
"He has lied about the war on Iraq. An illegal war. One that makes him
a war criminal." - Snit
"I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal." - Snit
"Ed has provided a faith-based-defense that I just don't think counts"
- Snit
Snit will now explain how his looking at his own "evidence" and coming
to a conclusion (in any direction) is *not* "based" on his "faith"
that his "evidence" shows him what he claims it shows him.
Poor Snit
LOL!
--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch
|