Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:33 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 8:26 AM:

You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a
mathematical proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is
required in a US court of law.

Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. I *know*
you will fail. You simply do not understand the difference.

Yes, me... and I've pointed to the fact that you said you had *no*
proof (of any kind) for years. What about it?

LOL!

* Proof

Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind). What
about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing it
already.

LOL!

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

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:13 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 8:10 AM:

...





As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to
establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to
observers. It's nothing more than the effect of evidence in
convincing the mind that something is true. Notably, you didn't
say anything about 'absolute proof', you said you had NO proof.
This means you didn't have absoute proof, you didn't have proof
beyond a reasonable doubt... or any other kind of proof. You
ready to change your position on your statement YET?

LOL!

LOL!

You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a
mathematical proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is
required in a US court of law.

Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. I *know*
you will fail. You simply do not understand the difference.

**** you. Why don't you answer his questions first.

I did answer your questions

There aren't any "questions" regarding the fact that you said you had
*no* proof (of any kind). What about it? Lemme guess... you're finally
ready to retract the statement?

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 8:40 AM:

I did answer your questions

There aren't any "questions" regarding the fact that you said you had
*no* proof (of any kind). What about it? Lemme guess... you're finally
ready to retract the statement?

LOL!

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

Even after years of having this explained to you, you still confused these
concepts and are unable to show understanding. How pathetic... and the very
reason you snip, run and make things up. Even you know I am right.



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 8:40 AM:

* Proof

Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind). What
about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing it
already.

LOL!

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

Even after years of having this explained to you, you still confused these
concepts and are unable to show understanding. How pathetic... and the very
reason you snip, run and make things up. Even you know I am right.

Face it, if you could you would explain the difference between the two just
to "prove" me wrong. But you cannot. You have *no* idea. None. You are
clueless.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 8:45*am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 8:40 AM:

* Proof

Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind). What
about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing it
already.

LOL!

* Proof: as

.... per your definition, read:

"a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true
something else necessarily follows from it".

Being that you said you didn't have any proof at all you are obviously
admitting that you didn't have one true statement from which something
else could necessarily follow (math need not apply). You wrote this,
yet, you don't seem to agree with it.

n that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

If you state (as you did) that your "evidence" doesn't contain a
single true statement from which something else could necessarily
follow... that'd create "a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any sane,
honest and honorable person.

Are you still trying to sell your other goofy argument that conflicts
with the western model of justice?

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

--
refute - to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute
--

Is your new argument going to be that an "argument" in a "court room"
isn't the same thing as "a claim, charge, allegation, etc" ? Or that
when a case involving a guilt allegation is dismissed for lack of any
proof that the "claim, charge, allegation, etc" it hasn't been
'denied' by the court? How do these things work in your mind, Snit?

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:45 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 8:40 AM:

* Proof

Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind).
What about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing
it already.

LOL!

* Proof: as

... per your definition, read:

"a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true
something else necessarily follows from it".

Being that you said you didn't have any proof at all you are obviously
admitting that you didn't have one true statement from which something
else could necessarily follow (math need not apply). You wrote this,
yet, you don't seem to agree with it.

n that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

If you state (as you did) that your "evidence" doesn't contain a
single true statement from which something else could necessarily
follow... that'd create "a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any sane,
honest and honorable person.

Are you still trying to sell your other goofy argument that conflicts
with the western model of justice?

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

--
refute - to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 9:30 AM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:45 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 8:40 AM:

* Proof

Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind).
What about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing
it already.

LOL!

* Proof: as

... per your definition, read:

"a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true
something else necessarily follows from it".

Being that you said you didn't have any proof at all you are obviously
admitting that you didn't have one true statement from which something
else could necessarily follow (math need not apply). You wrote this,
yet, you don't seem to agree with it.

n that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

If you state (as you did) that your "evidence" doesn't contain a
single true statement from which something else could necessarily
follow... that'd create "a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any sane,
honest and honorable person.

Are you still trying to sell your other goofy argument that conflicts
with the western model of justice?

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

--
refute - to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute

LOL!

You *still* are confusing two concepts as you snip and run in fear... and
then repost your drivel with your sock as you desperately seek to gain my
attention. Poor Steve: years of having two simple concepts explained to him
and he just cannot understand.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 9:34*am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 9:30 AM:





Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:45 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 8:40 AM:

* Proof

Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind).
What about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing
it already.

LOL!

* Proof: as

... per your definition, read:

"a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true
something else necessarily follows from it".

Being that you said you didn't have any proof at all you are obviously
admitting that you didn't have one true statement from which something
else could necessarily follow (math need not apply). You wrote this,
yet, you don't seem to agree with it.

n that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

If you state (as you did) *that your "evidence" doesn't contain a
single true statement from which something else could necessarily
follow... *that'd create "a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any sane,
honest and honorable person.

Are you still trying to sell your other goofy argument that conflicts
with the western model of justice?

*"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

--
refute *- to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute

LOL!

You *still* are confusing two concepts

So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. you have simultaneously admitted
that you don't have a single true statement from which something else
can necessarily follow. How's that work?

If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
explain your other position:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 9:34 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 9:30 AM:





Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:45 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 8:40 AM:

* Proof

Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any
kind). What about it? You're now ready to sing a different
tune? So sing it already.

LOL!

* Proof: as

... per your definition, read:

"a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true
something else necessarily follows from it".

Being that you said you didn't have any proof at all you are
obviously admitting that you didn't have one true statement from
which something else could necessarily follow (math need not
apply). You wrote this, yet, you don't seem to agree with it.

n that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

If you state (as you did) that your "evidence" doesn't contain a
single true statement from which something else could necessarily
follow... that'd create "a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any
sane, honest and honorable person.

Are you still trying to sell your other goofy argument that
conflicts with the western model of justice?

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

--
refute - to deny (a claim, charge, allegation, etc)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute

LOL!

You *still* are confusing two concepts

So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. you have simultaneously admitted
that you don't have a single true statement from which something else
can necessarily follow. How's that work?

If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
explain your other position:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 9:57 AM:

....
You *still* are confusing two concepts

So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. you have simultaneously admitted
that you don't have a single true statement from which something else
can necessarily follow. How's that work?

If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
explain your other position:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

LOL!

You want me to explain, again, concepts to you that you have shown you
simply do not have the capacity to understand:

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

The fact is the difference between those two is completely baffling to you.
Oh well.



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 10:00*am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 9:57 AM:

...

You *still* are confusing two concepts

So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains *"proof
beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. *you have simultaneously admitted
that you don't have a single true statement from which something else
can necessarily follow. How's that work?

If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
explain your other position:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

LOL!

You want me to explain

.... this:

How you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt", yet. you've simultaneously admitted you don't have
a single true thing from which something else can necessarily follow.

You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
"evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" should even be considered to BE "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" when there has not been a one true thing
established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your
position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies
you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 9:57 AM:

...

You *still* are confusing two concepts

So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. you have simultaneously admitted
that you don't have a single true statement from which something
else can necessarily follow. How's that work?

If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
explain your other position:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

LOL!

You want me to explain

... this:

How you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt", yet. you've simultaneously admitted you don't have
a single true thing from which something else can necessarily follow.

You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
"evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" should even be considered to BE "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" when there has not been a one true thing
established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your
position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies
you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 10:19 AM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 9:57 AM:

...

You *still* are confusing two concepts

So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. you have simultaneously admitted
that you don't have a single true statement from which something
else can necessarily follow. How's that work?

If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
explain your other position:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

LOL!

You want me to explain, again, concepts to you that you have shown you
simply do not have the capacity to understand:

* Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept
* Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

The fact is the difference between those two is completely baffling to you.
Oh well.

... this:

Your below comments just serve to prove me right - you *still* do not
understand the difference between the two concepts.

How you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt", yet. you've simultaneously admitted you don't have
a single true thing from which something else can necessarily follow.

You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
"evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" should even be considered to BE "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" when there has not been a one true thing
established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your
position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies
you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.

LOL!



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 10:22*am, Snit wrote:

How you believe that your "evidence" contains *"proof beyond a
reasonable doubt", yet. *you've simultaneously admitted you don't have
a single true thing from which something else can necessarily follow.

You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
"evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" should even be considered to *BE *"proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" *when there has not been a one true thing
established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your
position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies
you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.

LOL!

No one can make you move past 2003.

On Nov 29, 10:19*am, "Big Crotch on a Small Fish"
BigCrotch@SmallFish wrote:
Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:00 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 9:57 AM:

...

You *still* are confusing two concepts

So explain how you believe that your "evidence" contains "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt", yet. you have simultaneously admitted
that you don't have a single true statement from which something
else can necessarily follow. How's that work?

If that one is too difficult for you then put it on hold while you
explain your other position:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

LOL!

You want me to explain

... this:

How you believe that your "evidence" contains *"proof beyond a
reasonable doubt", yet. *you've simultaneously admitted you don't have
a single true thing from which something else can necessarily follow.

You *are* arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ,
right? If so, unless you retract your "proof" statement about your
"evidence", then your argument can only be about why "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" should even be considered to *BE *"proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" *when there has not been a one true thing
established from which something else can necessarily follow. I'm
interested in seeing you present such an argument. I'm sure I'm not
alone when I say that I feel it's about time you have moved past your
position from 2003 so you can begin to address the inconsistencies
you've left in your wake regarding your "argument'.

LOL!

Funny 'ha ha' or.... ?


"... he is morally and criminally guilty, but not legally guilty" -
Snit

"He has lied about the war on Iraq. An illegal war. One that makes him
a war criminal." - Snit

"I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal." - Snit

"Ed has provided a faith-based-defense that I just don't think counts"
- Snit

Snit will now explain how his looking at his own "evidence" and coming
to a conclusion (in any direction) is *not* "based" on his "faith"
that his "evidence" shows him what he claims it shows him.

Poor Snit