On Dec 1, 11:52*am, Chance Furlong wrote:
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.

Good point

On Dec 1, 12:20*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"


"Seems to me you are confusing evidence with proof." - Steve Carroll -
June 10 2003


That you've read other statements I've made and took them out of
context won't change the facts, gluehead

The idea behind evidence is to make something 'evident' with the
intention of proving (or disproving) something:

1 - that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief

2 - something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

(snip other crap where Snit displays the fruits of his reading
comprehension problem)

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 1, 12:20 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"


"Seems to me you are confusing evidence with proof." - Steve Carroll -
June 10 2003


That you've read other statements I've made and took them out of
context won't change the facts, gluehead

The idea behind evidence is to make something 'evident' with the
intention of proving (or disproving) something:

1 - that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief

2 - something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

(snip other crap where Snit displays the fruits of his reading
comprehension problem)

LOL!

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

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:52 am, Chance Furlong wrote:
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.

Good point

LOL!

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

Steve Carroll wrote:
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!

LOL!

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

Snit wrote:
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.

**** YOU!

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

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. 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...

**** YOU. You made an assertion you admitted you could not prove. Let it
go!

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

Snit 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.

In a legal context actually guilty is the same as being found guilty.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Women should rule the world!!!! wrote:
Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

Steve Carroll wrote:

LOL!

LOL!


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

**** YOU. Another man hating BITCH to support Snit.

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

Women should rule the world!!!! wrote:
Some tiny-dicked mere male wrote:

LOL!

Got any other lines, small-balls?

At least I have a pair and do not need to hide behind socks where I pretend
to be a girl, Snit.

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

Women should rule the world!!!! wrote:
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?

Since man created logic.

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

Proving something false is the same as proving it is true that it is false.
To much for a girl like you to understand, Snit.

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!



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

Women should rule the world!!!! wrote:
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?

That I have dick and you do not, except when you step on it, Snit.

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

Women should rule the world!!!! wrote:
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.

What is the obsession with my dick, Snit?

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

Women should rule the world!!!! wrote:
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.

Your whole legal backing is from daytime TV. Brilliant, Snit.

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