Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

LOL!

Drooling ****wit it is then.

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

when there has not been a one true thing
established from which something else can necessarily follow.

Hey, Carol, since when does something have to be true for some other
thing to necessarily follow?

Some thing can be 100% false and some thing can still necessarily follow.

Logic 101 for ****wits
======================
Truth is not a necessary condition of some thing to follow since it is
possible for the thing to be true without the condition that follows
being true.

Logic is short suit, right?

Kissy! Kissy!

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

**** you.

You'd like that, hey, pussyboi.

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

There is sufficient evidence to force a court of law to conclude that,
beyond a reasonable doubt, there is life after death.

Your point is what exactly, tinydick?

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

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 give up too easily, pencil-dick.

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.

On Dec 1, 3:42*am, Women should rule the world!!!!
wrote:


It is true that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not need to
contain anything for which a true statement can be made

If the thing you are labeling "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
contained no truth to it at all then it wouldn't prove anything to any
sane, honest and honorable person.

Put the crack pipe down, Snit

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:42 am, Women should rule the world!!!!
wrote:


It is true that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not need to
contain anything for which a true statement can be made

If the thing you are labeling "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
contained no truth to it at all then it wouldn't prove anything to any
sane, honest and honorable person.

Put the crack pipe down, Snit

LOL!

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

On 12/1/10 12:24 PM, Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:42 am, Women should rule the world!!!!
wrote:


It is true that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not need to
contain anything for which a true statement can be made

If the thing you are labeling "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
contained no truth to it at all then it wouldn't prove anything to any
sane, honest and honorable person.

Put the crack pipe down, Snit.

Let Snit smoke jis crack, it will take his mind off incest for a while.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Women should rule the world!!!! stated in post
on 12/1/10 3:33 AM:

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

when there has not been a one true thing
established from which something else can necessarily follow.

Hey, Carol, since when does something have to be true for some other
thing to necessarily follow?

Some thing can be 100% false and some thing can still necessarily follow.

Logic 101 for ****wits
======================
Truth is not a necessary condition of some thing to follow since it is
possible for the thing to be true without the condition that follows
being true.

Logic is short suit, right?

Kissy! Kissy!

Steve has been showing his complete ignorance about logic since at least
2003. He is obsessed with convincing people that I am wrong to say people
who are actually guilty are not always found guilty in any process of
adjudication.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

Women should rule the world!!!! stated in post
on 12/1/10 3:33 AM:

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

when there has not been a one true thing
established from which something else can necessarily follow.

Hey, Carol, since when does something have to be true for some other
thing to necessarily follow?

Some thing can be 100% false and some thing can still necessarily follow.

Logic 101 for ****wits
======================
Truth is not a necessary condition of some thing to follow since it is
possible for the thing to be true without the condition that follows
being true.

Logic is short suit, right?

Kissy! Kissy!

Steve has been showing his complete ignorance about logic since at least
2003. He is obsessed with convincing people that I am wrong to say people
who are actually guilty are not always found guilty in any process of
adjudication.

There's only one thing to say... O J Simpson.

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

On Dec 1, 3:42 am, Women should rule the world!!!!
wrote:


It is true that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not need to
contain anything for which a true statement can be made

If the thing you are labeling "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
contained no truth to it at all then it wouldn't prove anything to any
sane, honest and honorable person.

I see. So, tell me, can you prove that you are your self?

Put the crack pipe down, Snit

It's trepanning time...

Women should rule the world!!!! stated in post
on 12/1/10 1:05 PM:

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

On Dec 1, 3:42 am, Women should rule the world!!!!
wrote:


It is true that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not need to
contain anything for which a true statement can be made

If the thing you are labeling "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
contained no truth to it at all then it wouldn't prove anything to any
sane, honest and honorable person.

I see. So, tell me, can you prove that you are your self?

Steve is mad that I offered evidence - very strong evidence - which he could
not refute. The original argument was about my views that a political he
likes had broken the law. Steve insisted the person could not be guilty of
doing so unless he was *found* guilty (even though he was never tried or
even charged)... but then flip-flopped and said another politician he did
not like *was* guilty even though he was charged and found "not guilty".

But keep in mind, that was in - I kid you not - 2003. And Steve has not
been able to let it go that entire time. It just rips him apart that he
never could refute my argument.

Put the crack pipe down, Snit

It's trepanning time...



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Women should rule the world!!!! stated in post
on 12/1/10 12:57 PM:

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

Women should rule the world!!!! stated in post
on 12/1/10 3:33 AM:

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

when there has not been a one true thing
established from which something else can necessarily follow.

Hey, Carol, since when does something have to be true for some other
thing to necessarily follow?

Some thing can be 100% false and some thing can still necessarily follow.

Logic 101 for ****wits
======================
Truth is not a necessary condition of some thing to follow since it is
possible for the thing to be true without the condition that follows
being true.

Logic is short suit, right?

Kissy! Kissy!

Steve has been showing his complete ignorance about logic since at least
2003. He is obsessed with convincing people that I am wrong to say people
who are actually guilty are not always found guilty in any process of
adjudication.

There's only one thing to say... O J Simpson.

He did not break the law (not guilty of doing so)... after all, a court
found him "not guilty". LOL! Yeah, things like that blow Steve's mind...
he completely flip flops and insists that has been his point... as he
insists his favored politician cannot be guilty because no adjudication
process found him so.

He thinks people are so stupid they will not see how contorted his claims
are.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Dec 1, 1:34*pm, Snit wrote:
Women should rule the world!!!! stated in post
on 12/1/10 1:05 PM:

Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

On Dec 1, 3:42 am, Women should rule the world!!!!
*wrote:

It is true that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not need to
contain anything for which a true statement can be made

If the thing you are labeling "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
contained no truth to it at all then it wouldn't prove anything to any
sane, honest and honorable person.

I see. So, tell me, can you prove that you are your self?

Steve is mad that I offered evidence - very strong evidence - which he could
not refute.

Everyone refuted it... you started by saying that treaties are the
supreme law of the land and went downhill from there.

*The original argument was about my views that a political he
likes

I don't like Bush.

had broken the law. *Steve insisted the person could not be guilty of
doing so unless he was *found* guilty

Again... a third party can't make a statement saying someone else is
guilty without going through some sort of a 'finding' process... one
that should include facts.

(even though he was never tried or
even charged).

Yes, Snit. you made it clear how you feel you intuited Bush's guilt
with no 'finding' process being done by you at all. LOL!