On Dec 1, 7:52*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 4:56 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" 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.

I never confused the terms. *You did, gluey.

And yet you keep doing so over and over and over and over. *Funny, eh?

Quit arguing with your sock.shill.

(snip crap where Snit takes thing from multiple contexts, conflates
them and confuses himself ever more than he's usually confused)