29-11-2010, 09:56 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
|
|
A rose by any other name....
Steve Carroll wrote:
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...
LOL!
--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch
|