GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post

Big Crotch on a Small Fish

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 1, 8:37 pm, Snit wrote:
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

Don't you think you've done enough pretending for a lifetime., Snit? I
mean... at some point you really need to make room for at least a
little bit of reality, no?

You can start by ceasing these goofy arguments with your socks/shills.
IIt's really very embarrassing to watch you fall apart to this
extent...

LOL!

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