Snit wrote:
Women should rule the world!!!! stated in post
on 12/1/10 1:05
PM:

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

On Dec 1, 3:42 am, Women should rule the world!!!!
wrote:


It is true that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not need to
contain anything for which a true statement can be made

If the thing you are labeling "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
contained no truth to it at all then it wouldn't prove anything to
any sane, honest and honorable person.

I see. So, tell me, can you prove that you are your self?

Steve is mad that I offered evidence - very strong evidence - which
he could not refute. The original argument was about my views that a
political he likes had broken the law. Steve insisted the person
could not be guilty of doing so unless he was *found* guilty (even
though he was never tried or even charged)... but then flip-flopped
and said another politician he did not like *was* guilty even though
he was charged and found "not guilty".

But keep in mind, that was in - I kid you not - 2003. And Steve has
not been able to let it go that entire time. It just rips him apart
that he never could refute my argument.

Put the crack pipe down, Snit

It's trepanning time...

**** YOU. You made an assertion you admitted you could not prove. Let it
go!

--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch