A rose by any other name....
 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 2:13 PM:

....
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!

I am noting, Steve, that you have struggled and confused two concepts for
years (since 2003):

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

And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing". Nothing - I am noting
a fact. You have confused the two concepts *today* with your rants. Today.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

A rose by any other name....
 

On Nov 29, 2:17*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 2:13 PM:

...

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!

I am noting

You forgot the 'h' ;)


Poor Snit... now he's trying to argue that "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt" doesn't need to contain any true statements from which a
deduction can be made.

A rose by any other name....
 

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:17 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 2:13 PM:

...

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!

I am noting

You forgot the 'h' ;)


Poor Snit... now he's trying to argue that "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt" doesn't need to contain any true statements from which a
deduction can be made.

LOL!

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

A rose by any other name....
 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 2:32 PM:

....
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!

I am noting, Steve, that you have struggled and confused two concepts for
years (since 2003):

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

And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing". Nothing - I am noting
a fact. You have confused the two concepts *today* with your rants. Today.

You forgot the 'h' ;)

Poor Snit... now he's trying to argue that "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt" doesn't need to contain any true statements from which a
deduction can be made.

You have struggled and confused two concepts for years (since 2003):

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

And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing"... and then insisting
you know what I am "arguing" (once again you are telling people what they
think). To the contrary, I am merely noting a fact. You have confused the
two concepts *today* with your rants as you have done repeatedly since 2003.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

A rose by any other name....
 

On Nov 29, 2:34*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 2:32 PM:

...





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!

I am noting, Steve, that you have struggled and confused two concepts for
years (since 2003):

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

And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing". *Nothing - I am noting
a fact. *You have confused the two concepts *today* with your rants.. *Today.

You forgot the 'h' ;)

Poor Snit... now he's trying to argue that "proof beyond a reasonable
doubt" *doesn't need to contain any true statements from which a
deduction can be made.

You have

No, you have... and it's more than bizarre that you convinced yourself
of this guilt while you admit you had no proof. Political agendas are
funny like that, though...

A rose by any other name....
 

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:34 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 2:32 PM:

...





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!

I am noting, Steve, that you have struggled and confused two
concepts for years (since 2003):

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

And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing". Nothing - I
am noting a fact. You have confused the two concepts *today* with
your rants. Today.

You forgot the 'h' ;)

Poor Snit... now he's trying to argue that "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt" doesn't need to contain any true statements from
which a deduction can be made.

You have

No, you have... and it's more than bizarre that you convinced yourself
of this guilt while you admit you had no proof. Political agendas are
funny like that, though...

LOL!

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

A rose by any other name....
 

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 2:56 PM:

....
You have struggled and confused two concepts for years (since 2003):

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

And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing"... and then insisting
you know what I am "arguing" (once again you are telling people what they
think). To the contrary, I am merely noting a fact. You have confused the
two concepts *today* with your rants as you have done repeatedly since 2003.

No, you have...

Ah, the ol' grade school "I'm rubber and you are glue" defense. Just
brilliant... LOL! But then you immediately prove me right *again* by
misrepresenting my comments in a way that proves you are confusing the two
concepts. Again. And since 2003. Really, Steve, that is *pathetic*.

and it's more than bizarre that you convinced yourself
of this guilt while you admit you had no proof. Political agendas are
funny like that, though...

LOL!



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

A rose by any other name....
 

On Nov 29, 3:02*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 2:56 PM:

...

You have struggled and confused two concepts for years (since 2003):

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

And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing"... and then insisting
you know what I am "arguing" (once again you are telling people what they
think). *To the contrary, I am merely noting a fact. *You have confused the
two concepts *today* with your rants as you have done repeatedly since 2003.

No, you have... . and it's more than bizarre that you convinced yourself
of this guilt while you admit you had no proof. Political agendas are
funny like that, though...

Ah

OK, glad to see we agree on this.

A rose by any other name....
 

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:02 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 2:56 PM:

...

You have struggled and confused two concepts for years (since
2003):

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

And from this you jump to asking what I am "arguing"... and then
insisting you know what I am "arguing" (once again you are
telling people what they think). To the contrary, I am merely
noting a fact. You have confused the two concepts *today* with
your rants as you have done repeatedly since 2003.

No, you have... . and it's more than bizarre that you convinced
yourself of this guilt while you admit you had no proof. Political
agendas are funny like that, though...

Ah

OK, glad to see we agree on this.

LOL!

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

Are all trolls bad at math?
 

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

Steve Carroll wrote:

LOL!

LOL!


Gawd! A supine cocksucker with nary an imagination or a dick.

Are all trolls bad at math?
 

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

**** you.

That's more than you can do, tiddler-cock.

Are all trolls bad at math?
 

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

LOL!

Got any other lines, small-balls?

Are all trolls bad at math?
 

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

LOL!

Apparently not.

Are all trolls bad at math?
 

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

LOL!

You're a parrot, right?

Are all trolls bad at math?
 

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

LOL!

Ok, not even parrots have such a tiny repetoir. Perhaps you're just a
drooling ****wit?