02-12-2010, 03:26 AM
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, 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)
LOL!
--
You Ain't the Biggest Fish in the Crotch
|