Steve Carroll wrote:
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.

LOL!

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

Steve Carroll wrote:
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

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 11:56 AM:

....
Funny 'ha ha' or.... ?


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

In response to you confusing the concepts of guilt in the terms of

* actual guilt
* adjudication

You repeatedly confused those concepts as well. You have done so for years.

"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

There is always a chance for error... noted in response to your confusion
about the two concepts:

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

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

I do not even recall what this was in relation to. Nor do I care.

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

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
and other 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.

And funny, Big Crotch, how Steve Carroll always responds as if he was you.
LOL! How stupid do you think people are, Steve, to actually not know you
are using yet another sock. And when I stop responding to this one you will
make another... and another... and another. The following is, I am sure,
just a partial list of your aliases (you goofed again recently and pointed
other resources of yours where you use the name "Fretwiz" - not like anyone
does not know that was one of your socks, but can't you are least pretend to
keep up the charade a bit better?):

"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit *
Big Crotch on a Small Fish
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Edward Stanfield
Fretwiz *
Hitman Hero
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Slaveen
Smit
Steve C *
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll *
Steve Carroll *
Steve Carroll *
Steve Carroll's Dog *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve Carrroll *
Yevette Owens
Yobo_Obyo



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 11:56 AM:

No one can make you move past 2003.

LOL!

You did this mean as irony, right? As you sit here begging me... even using
socks... to explain to you *again* the concepts you have failed to
understand since 2003:

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

You have been begging me to explain the difference to you for over half a
decade... and I have explained it. Many times. You just cannot understand.
Oh well.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 11:56 AM:

No one can make you move past 2003.

LOL!

You did this mean as irony, right? As you sit here begging me...
even using socks... to explain to you *again* the concepts you have
failed to understand since 2003:

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

You have been begging me to explain the difference to you for over
half a decade... and I have explained it. Many times. You just
cannot understand. Oh well.

**** you. I have never been confused over the two. You *are* the one who
has been arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". 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'.

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

Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 11:56 AM:

...
Funny 'ha ha' or.... ?


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

In response to you confusing the concepts of guilt in the terms of

* actual guilt
* adjudication

What happened to actual guilt vs. legal guilt? Changing your goal posts
again.

You repeatedly confused those concepts as well. You have done so for
years.

"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

There is always a chance for error... noted in response to your
confusion about the two concepts:

When you are involved there is more than a chance for error.

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

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

I do not even recall what this was in relation to. Nor do I care.

Stop huffing and you will remember.

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

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 and other 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.

And funny, Big Crotch, how Steve Carroll always responds as if he was
you. LOL! How stupid do you think people are, Steve, to actually not
know you are using yet another sock. And when I stop responding to
this one you will make another... and another... and another. The
following is, I am sure, just a partial list of your aliases (you
goofed again recently and pointed other resources of yours where you
use the name "Fretwiz" - not like anyone does not know that was one
of your socks, but can't you are least pretend to keep up the charade
a bit better?):

"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit *
Big Crotch on a Small Fish
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Edward Stanfield
Fretwiz *
Hitman Hero
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Slaveen
Smit
Steve C *
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll *
Steve Carroll *
Steve Carroll *
Steve Carroll's Dog *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve Carrroll *
Yevette Owens
Yobo_Obyo

Those are all you ASSHOLE.

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 12:13 PM:

....
* actual guilt
* adjudication

What happened to actual guilt vs. legal guilt? Changing your goal posts
again.

Nice dodge. You have no idea what the concepts mean. None.


....
* 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 and other 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.

And funny, Big Crotch, how Steve Carroll always responds as if he was
you. LOL! How stupid do you think people are, Steve, to actually not
know you are using yet another sock. And when I stop responding to
this one you will make another... and another... and another. The
following is, I am sure, just a partial list of your aliases (you
goofed again recently and pointed other resources of yours where you
use the name "Fretwiz" - not like anyone does not know that was one
of your socks, but can't you are least pretend to keep up the charade
a bit better?):

"Evil" John *
"Evil" Snit *
Big Crotch on a Small Fish
Cornelius Munshower
CSMA Moderator
Edward Stanfield
Fretwiz *
Hitman Hero
Measles
Petruzzellis Kids
Sigmond
Slaveen
Smit
Steve C *
Steve Camoll *
Steve Carroll *
Steve Carroll *
Steve Carroll *
Steve Carroll's Dog *
Steve Carrolll *
Steve Carrroll *
Yevette Owens
Yobo_Obyo

Those are all you ASSHOLE.

All? Perhaps you should re-think that, Steve. LOL! Keep in mind, the ones
with asterisks you have admitted to. And you have posted with at least two
of those *today*.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 12:11 PM:

Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 11:56 AM:

No one can make you move past 2003.

LOL!

You did this mean as irony, right? As you sit here begging me...
even using socks... to explain to you *again* the concepts you have
failed to understand since 2003:

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

You have been begging me to explain the difference to you for over
half a decade... and I have explained it. Many times. You just
cannot understand. Oh well.

**** you. I have never been confused over the two.

Ah, you claim that below you just pretend to be confused. Whatever. You
are boring... with whatever name you post with.

You *are* the one who
has been arguing that you have "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". 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'.



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 12:16*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 12:13 PM:

...

* actual guilt
* adjudication

What happened to actual guilt vs. legal guilt? *Changing your goal posts
again.

Nice dodge.

He missed the larger point anyway... gee, the same one you always miss
it, funny that. Point to "guilt" of another person as seen by a third
party where the guilt hasn't been established via a finding. That
finding requires looking... at "evidence". The job of evidence is to
make something evident to those doing the looking. You looked at what
you labeled as your evidence (it was really just stuff you parroted
from around the net) and said it didn't contain a single true thing
from which something else could necessarily follow. It doesn't matter
what word you use to describe an absence of truth, all your word games
aside... if truth isn't there.... it isn't there. Are you ready to
sing a different tune on this YET?

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 12:16 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 12:13 PM:

...

* actual guilt
* adjudication

What happened to actual guilt vs. legal guilt? Changing your goal
posts again.

Nice dodge.

He missed the larger point anyway... gee, the same one you always miss
it, funny that. Point to "guilt" of another person as seen by a third
party where the guilt hasn't been established via a finding. That
finding requires looking... at "evidence". The job of evidence is to
make something evident to those doing the looking. You looked at what
you labeled as your evidence (it was really just stuff you parroted
from around the net) and said it didn't contain a single true thing
from which something else could necessarily follow. It doesn't matter
what word you use to describe an absence of truth, all your word games
aside... if truth isn't there.... it isn't there. Are you ready to
sing a different tune on this YET?

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 12:54 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 12:16 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 12:13 PM:

...

* actual guilt
* adjudication

What happened to actual guilt vs. legal guilt? Changing your goal
posts again.

Nice dodge.

He missed the larger point anyway... gee, the same one you always miss
it, funny that. Point to "guilt" of another person as seen by a third
party where the guilt hasn't been established via a finding. That
finding requires looking... at "evidence". The job of evidence is to
make something evident to those doing the looking. You looked at what
you labeled as your evidence (it was really just stuff you parroted
from around the net) and said it didn't contain a single true thing
from which something else could necessarily follow. It doesn't matter
what word you use to describe an absence of truth, all your word games
aside... if truth isn't there.... it isn't there. Are you ready to
sing a different tune on this YET?

LOL!

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

Based on your ignorance, since 2003 you have wanted me to "sing a different
tune" when you *should* have been working to understand those concepts. The
concepts are not hard - yet it is nearing a *decade* of you obsessing over
this!


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 12:08*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 11:56 AM:

No one can make you move past 2003.

LOL!

You did this mean as irony, right?

Asked the guy who stated his evidence didn't contain a single true
statement from which something else could necessarily follow,yet,
wants people to believe that evidence convinced him of someone's
guilt.

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 12:08 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 11:56 AM:

No one can make you move past 2003.

LOL!

You did this mean as irony, right?

Asked the guy who stated his evidence didn't contain a single true
statement from which something else could necessarily follow,yet,
wants people to believe that evidence convinced him of someone's
guilt.

LOL!

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

Steve Carroll stated in post
on
11/29/10 12:59 PM:

On Nov 29, 12:08*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 11:56 AM:

No one can make you move past 2003.

LOL!

You did this mean as irony, right?

Asked the guy who stated his evidence didn't contain a single true
statement from which something else could necessarily follow,yet,
wants people to believe that evidence convinced him of someone's
guilt.

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

Based on your ignorance, since 2003 you have wanted me to "sing a different
tune" when you *should* have been working to understand those concepts. The
concepts are not hard - yet it is nearing a *decade* of you obsessing over
this!


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 1:09 pm, Snit wrote:
Steve Carroll stated in post
on
11/29/10 12:59 PM:

On Nov 29, 12:08 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 11:56 AM:

No one can make you move past 2003.

LOL!

You did this mean as irony, right?

Asked the guy who stated his evidence didn't contain a single true
statement from which something else could necessarily follow,yet,
wants people to believe that evidence convinced him of someone's
guilt.

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

Are you trying to argue that the former contains truth and the latter
needn't?

(be careful. Snit... this path is fraught with pitfalls

LOL!

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