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

Ask me to my face, Snit.

Put the crack pipe down, Snit

It's trepanning time...



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

Women should rule the world!!!! wrote:
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 killed his wife but was not actually guilty, not in a legal context.

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 4:56 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" 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.

And yet you keep doing so over and over and over and over. Funny, eh?

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.

Snit:
-----
And for a long time Steve argued:

Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation
-----

Which is, of course:

A = B
B = C
A C

And the response:

Steve Carroll:
-----
Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
honorable people.
-----

There you were, arguing that *logic* is wrong, at least in a court of law.
Now while it is true that logic is not always *followed* in adjudication,
that does not imply logic itself ceases to exist, as you claimed it does.

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.

Your posts from the last few days - no less since 2003 - show you repeatedly
making such insane claims about how without *proof* (as described above)
there is "reasonable doubt" and therefore no basis for a conviction.

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.

http://goo.gl/7HRLZ

Do you deny you were accusing me of being the person you claimed I was? Do
you deny threatening to try to get me fired? Do you deny saying you were
going to send a large list of reasons you hated me to my employer?

Come on, Steve, that was one of your most extreme break downs. Have you
blocked it from your memory?

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.

Did you forget which name you were using in the post, Steve? LOL!

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 4:55 PM:

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.

Do you think legal opinions from supreme court justices are written in a
legal context? LOL! Even you admitted that when such a document talked
about someone being "actually guilty" it did not mean what you say, above.

Poor Steve... humiliating himself since 2003.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 4:53 PM:

....
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!

Your anger and hatred are consuming you, Steve. Again. Still.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 4:53 PM:

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!

I made and supported an argument... one you never could refute so you
freaked out. In 2003. And you have yet to recover... clearly.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 4:52 PM:

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

So?

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!

* 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...


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 5:01 PM:

Women should rule the world!!!! wrote:
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 killed his wife but was not actually guilty, not in a legal context.

He was, by all appearances, actually guilty... just not found so in a court
of law.

Remember, Steve, in 2003 (!) when your toddler tantrum began, the the
context was described as being *discussing the law* ... not adjudication as
you keep jumping to with the concept of "a legal context". You have not
been able to figure that out in all this time.

Which is pathetic. You really should know how pathetic by now.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Dec 1, 7:52*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 4:56 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" 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.

And yet you keep doing so over and over and over and over. *Funny, eh?

Quit arguing with your sock.shill.

(snip crap where Snit takes thing from multiple contexts, conflates
them and confuses himself ever more than he's usually confused)

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 1, 7:52 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/1/10 4:56 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" 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.

And yet you keep doing so over and over and over and over. Funny, eh?

Quit arguing with your sock.shill.

(snip crap where Snit takes thing from multiple contexts, conflates
them and confuses himself ever more than he's usually confused)

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 8:26 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" 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.

And yet you keep doing so over and over and over and over. Funny, eh?

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.

Snit:
-----
And for a long time Steve argued:

Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation
-----

Which is, of course:

A = B
B = C
A C

And the response:

Steve Carroll:
-----
Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
honorable people.
-----

There you were, arguing that *logic* is wrong, at least in a court of law.
Now while it is true that logic is not always *followed* in adjudication,
that does not imply logic itself ceases to exist, as you claimed it does.

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.

Your posts from the last few days - no less since 2003 - show you repeatedly
making such insane claims about how without *proof* (as described above)
there is "reasonable doubt" and therefore no basis for a conviction.

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.

http://goo.gl/7HRLZ

Do you deny you were accusing me of being the person you claimed I was? Do
you deny threatening to try to get me fired? Do you deny saying you were
going to send a large list of reasons you hated me to my employer?

Come on, Steve, that was one of your most extreme break downs. Have you
blocked it from your memory?

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.

Did you forget which name you were using in the post, Steve? LOL!

Quit arguing with your sock.shill.

Just for a moment, "Big Crotch", let's pretend you are not lying but
mistaken... if you really cannot figure out who your own "aliases" are you
are even more sick than I think you are. And you might be.

(snip crap where Snit takes thing from multiple contexts, conflates
them and confuses himself ever more than he's usually confused)

Oh! Oh! Do show where! Do you deny you tried to argue against basic logic
(at least in a court), as I quote you doing? Do you deny you have been
confusing the concepts of absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable
doubt... even though you have repeatedly been quoted doing so even in the
last few days? And the biggest one - do you deny having such an intense
breakdown that you tracked me down to my place of employments and made
public threats to try to get me fired, in part with your list of reasons you
hate me and in part because you were accusing me of impersonating the person
*you* claim I am? Do you deny saying you would "twist arms" to get me
fired? Was your breakdown so bad you *really* have blocked the memory from
your sick little mind?

Come on, Steve... um, "Big Crotch", do try to back up your accusations.

And remember, you lie more in one day than I do in a decade. And you prove
that over and over and over and over. And the fact I just point at you and
laugh clearly ****ed you off and makes you even more angry.

And I just keep laughing.

LOL!

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Dec 1, 8:09*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 5:01 PM:





Women should rule the world!!!! wrote:
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 killed his wife but was not actually guilty, not in a legal context.

He was, by all appearances, actually guilty... just not found so in a court
of law.

Remember, Steve, in 2003 (!) when

.... you said :

"Perhaps not, but we are all expressing our opinions here. *And I am
showing
I am supported by hundreds of lawyers. *Where is your support? *For
now,
unless someone can show me a good reason, I will accept logic and the
words
of over 300 lawyers over yours, especially since yours seems based on
partisan support. *I am sure you understand."


Yes, I remember when you used to realize what you were stating was
merely an "opinion". I then watched you spend years forgetting that
it was merely an opinion as you kept stating Bush's guilt as a fact.
That the case had been sent to court multiple times and thrown out
didn't seem to deter your trolling. You even asked: "Where is your
support?" - as if the case hadn'
t *already* been tossed out on grounds you couldn't comprehend...
despite numerous people trying to explain them to you. Personally, I
think you were too stoned back then... I like you much better now
where you just mix alcohol with the pills and you lay off the crack to
a greater extent

(snip the rest of Snit's toddler tantrum)

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 1, 8:09 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/1/10 5:01 PM:





Women should rule the world!!!! wrote:
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 killed his wife but was not actually guilty, not in a legal
context.

He was, by all appearances, actually guilty... just not found so in
a court of law.

Remember, Steve, in 2003 (!) when

... you said :

"Perhaps not, but we are all expressing our opinions here. And I am
showing
I am supported by hundreds of lawyers. Where is your support? For
now,
unless someone can show me a good reason, I will accept logic and the
words
of over 300 lawyers over yours, especially since yours seems based on
partisan support. I am sure you understand."


Yes, I remember when you used to realize what you were stating was
merely an "opinion". I then watched you spend years forgetting that
it was merely an opinion as you kept stating Bush's guilt as a fact.
That the case had been sent to court multiple times and thrown out
didn't seem to deter your trolling. You even asked: "Where is your
support?" - as if the case hadn'
t *already* been tossed out on grounds you couldn't comprehend...
despite numerous people trying to explain them to you. Personally, I
think you were too stoned back then... I like you much better now
where you just mix alcohol with the pills and you lay off the crack to
a greater extent

(snip the rest of Snit's toddler tantrum)

LOL!

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

On Dec 1, 8:37*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
12/1/10 8:26 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" 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.

And yet you keep doing so over and over and over and over. *Funny, eh?

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.

Snit:
* * -----
* * And for a long time Steve argued:

* * Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
* * Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
* * Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation
* * -----

Which is, of course:

* * A = *B
* * B = *C
* * A C

And the response:

* Steve Carroll:
* * * -----
* * Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
* * statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
* * honorable people.
* * *-----

There you were, arguing that *logic* is wrong, at least in a court of law.
Now while it is true that logic is not always *followed* in adjudication,
that does not imply logic itself ceases to exist, as you claimed it does.

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.

Your posts from the last few days - no less since 2003 - show you repeatedly
making such insane claims about how without *proof* (as described above)
there is "reasonable doubt" and therefore no basis for a conviction.

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.

http://goo.gl/7HRLZ

Do you deny you were accusing me of being the person you claimed I was? *Do
you deny threatening to try to get me fired? *Do you deny saying you were
going to send a large list of reasons you hated me to my employer?

Come on, Steve, that was one of your most extreme break downs. *Have you
blocked it from your memory?

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.

Did you forget which name you were using in the post, Steve? *LOL!
Quit arguing with your sock.shill.

Just for a moment, "Big Crotch", let's pretend


Don't you think you've done enough pretending for a lifetime., Snit? I
mean... at some point you really need to make room for at least a
little bit of reality, no?

You can start by ceasing these goofy arguments with your socks/shills.
IIt's really very embarrassing to watch you fall apart to this
extent...

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Dec 1, 8:37 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 12/1/10 8:26 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"
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.

And yet you keep doing so over and over and over and over. Funny,
eh?

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.

Snit:
-----
And for a long time Steve argued:

Lack of proof equals or necessarily leads to Doubt
Doubt equals or necessarily leads to a Valid Refutation
Lack of proof neither = nor necessarily lead to a Valid Refutation
-----

Which is, of course:

A = B
B = C
A C

And the response:

Steve Carroll:
-----
Where an allegation of guilt is involved (the context I made the
statements in), these are absolutely true for all sane, honest and
honorable people.
-----

There you were, arguing that *logic* is wrong, at least in a court
of law. Now while it is true that logic is not always *followed*
in adjudication, that does not imply logic itself ceases to exist,
as you claimed it does.

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.

Your posts from the last few days - no less since 2003 - show you
repeatedly making such insane claims about how without *proof* (as
described above) there is "reasonable doubt" and therefore no
basis for a conviction.

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.

http://goo.gl/7HRLZ

Do you deny you were accusing me of being the person you claimed I
was? Do you deny threatening to try to get me fired? Do you deny
saying you were going to send a large list of reasons you hated me
to my employer?

Come on, Steve, that was one of your most extreme break downs.
Have you blocked it from your memory?

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.

Did you forget which name you were using in the post, Steve? LOL!
Quit arguing with your sock.shill.

Just for a moment, "Big Crotch", let's pretend


Don't you think you've done enough pretending for a lifetime., Snit? I
mean... at some point you really need to make room for at least a
little bit of reality, no?

You can start by ceasing these goofy arguments with your socks/shills.
IIt's really very embarrassing to watch you fall apart to this
extent...

LOL!

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