29-11-2010, 09:13 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
|
|
A rose by any other name....
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 1:09 pm, Snit wrote:
Steve Carroll stated in post
on
11/29/10 12:59 PM:
On Nov 29, 12:08 pm, 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?
Asked the guy who stated his evidence didn't contain a single true
statement from which something else could necessarily follow,yet,
wants people to believe that evidence convinced him of someone's
guilt.
* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute
concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
Are you trying to argue that the former contains truth and the latter
needn't?
(be careful. Snit... this path is fraught with pitfalls
LOL!
--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch
|