Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 11:56 AM:
No one can make you move past 2003.
LOL!
You did this mean as irony, right? As you sit here begging me...
even using socks... to explain to you *again* the concepts you have
failed to understand since 2003:
* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
You have been begging me to explain the difference to you for over
half a decade... and I have explained it. Many times. You just
cannot understand. Oh well.
**** you. I have never been confused over the two. You *are* the one who
has been arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". 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'.
--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch