01-12-2010, 11:52 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
|
|
Are all trolls bad at math?
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 1, 12:20 pm, Snit wrote:
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"
"Seems to me you are confusing evidence with proof." - Steve Carroll -
June 10 2003
That you've read other statements I've made and took them out of
context won't change the facts, gluehead
The idea behind evidence is to make something 'evident' with the
intention of proving (or disproving) something:
1 - that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief
2 - something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
(snip other crap where Snit displays the fruits of his reading
comprehension problem)
LOL!
--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch
|