On Nov 29, 2:34*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 2:32 PM:

...





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!

I am noting, Steve, that you have struggled and confused two concepts for
years (since 2003):

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing". *Nothing - I am noting
a fact. *You have confused the two concepts *today* with your rants.. *Today.

You forgot the 'h'

Poor Snit... now he's trying to argue that "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt" *doesn't need to contain any true statements from which a
deduction can be made.

You have

No, you have... and it's more than bizarre that you convinced yourself
of this guilt while you admit you had no proof. Political agendas are
funny like that, though...