Women should rule the world!!!! stated in post
on 12/1/10 3:42 AM:

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

Your definition of proof,which relies upon the existence of a true
statement so that something else could neccesarily follow from it,
works just fine in this context. Math need not apply. You're now
trying to convince readers that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
doesn't need to contain anything for which a true statement can be
made about it... you know, so some deduction can necessarily follow
from the statement. Good luck with your idea that people are as stupid
as you need them to be

In a court there is almost never proof...

In courtFAGGOTSLAP

It is true that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not need to
contain anything for which a true statement can be made. You've probably
never even watched Judge Judy, let alone ever been in anything other
than a divorce court.

Steve cannot tell the difference between "proof" and "evidence" not between
the concepts of "proof" as in a mathematical proof (absolute proof) and
"proof beyond a reasonable doubt" which is used in adjudication and often in
general assessment of other's behavior.

For example, if A=B and B=C, then one can be assured that A = C. The fact A
= C is necessarily true. There is no room for a contrary outcome (which has
not stopped Steve from arguing against it, but that is a bit of a side
issue).

On the other hand, if Steve were accused of robbing a bank and was later
shown to be doing so on camera, there were 10 eye witnesses who all said he
did it, his fingerprints and DNA were found exactly where one would expect
at the crime scene and the police found the money at his house, then it
would seem very, very likely that Steve was the thief. But, one could
argue, that there might be someone who looks exactly like Steve (perhaps his
good twin) and that the people processing the forensic evidence could make
mistakes or be paid off... and the money could have been planted at his
house. So there is some logical possibility of error in saying Steve is
guilty. The chances are minuscule and, frankly, ridiculous unless there is
some evidence to support those claims. Steve would be guilty beyond any
reasonable doubt... even though there is only strong evidence and no proof
of his guilt.

These things have been explained to Steve for close to a decade (since
2003). But he is incapable of understanding them. It drives him crazy that
he cannot get it, so he trolls me about it and lies about it and takes
quotes out of context (as he will take the above... quoting snippets and
pretending it means something other than it does). This is just what Steve
does. He got so upset that he even tracked me down to my place of
employment and said he would contact my boss, accuse me of forging the
person he claimed I was and include a list of reasons he hates me... with
the intent of having me fired. He even said he would "twist arms" to do so.

When I stopped responding directly to his main name, he increased his use of
sock puppets... and that keeps increasing. He also keeps cross posting into
many forums to spread his lies as far as he can. There is something very,
very wrong with him.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]