Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 8:26 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?
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).
Prove it, gluey.
Snit:
-----
And for a long time Steve argued:
Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation
-----
Which is, of course:
A = B
B = C
A C
And the response:
Steve Carroll:
-----
Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
honorable people.
-----
There you were, arguing that *logic* is wrong, at least in a court of law.
Now while it is true that logic is not always *followed* in adjudication,
that does not imply logic itself ceases to exist, as you claimed it does.
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.
Prove it, gluey.
Your posts from the last few days - no less since 2003 - show you repeatedly
making such insane claims about how without *proof* (as described above)
there is "reasonable doubt" and therefore no basis for a conviction.
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.
Prove it, gluey.
http://goo.gl/7HRLZ
Do you deny you were accusing me of being the person you claimed I was? Do
you deny threatening to try to get me fired? Do you deny saying you were
going to send a large list of reasons you hated me to my employer?
Come on, Steve, that was one of your most extreme break downs. Have you
blocked it from your memory?
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.
I do not use socks, gluey.
Did you forget which name you were using in the post, Steve? LOL!
Quit arguing with your sock.shill.
Just for a moment, "Big Crotch", let's pretend you are not lying but
mistaken... if you really cannot figure out who your own "aliases" are you
are even more sick than I think you are. And you might be.
(snip crap where Snit takes thing from multiple contexts, conflates
them and confuses himself ever more than he's usually confused)
Oh! Oh! Do show where! Do you deny you tried to argue against basic logic
(at least in a court), as I quote you doing? Do you deny you have been
confusing the concepts of absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable
doubt... even though you have repeatedly been quoted doing so even in the
last few days? And the biggest one - do you deny having such an intense
breakdown that you tracked me down to my place of employments and made
public threats to try to get me fired, in part with your list of reasons you
hate me and in part because you were accusing me of impersonating the person
*you* claim I am? Do you deny saying you would "twist arms" to get me
fired? Was your breakdown so bad you *really* have blocked the memory from
your sick little mind?
Come on, Steve... um, "Big Crotch", do try to back up your accusations.
And remember, you lie more in one day than I do in a decade. And you prove
that over and over and over and over. And the fact I just point at you and
laugh clearly ****ed you off and makes you even more angry.
And I just keep laughing.
LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]