Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 24, 8:36 am, Snit wrote:
KDT stated in post
on
11/24/10 5:36 AM:

"Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and
over anyway.

That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
3000% more expensive. "

These type of math errors are common with the trolls...

Survey: http://nitobi.com/survey/
241 of 571 said they use Dreamweaver (42%)
Tim Adams:
-----
_80% DO NOT USE Dreamweaver AT ALL_!
-----

And then there is Wally:
-----
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
-----
But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
as you have said it would!
-----
whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
the answer actually is
-----

And then there is Carroll, who rarely actually tries to do any type
of math directly, but has repeatedly shown he does not know the
difference between absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof) and
the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And he has some
interesting quotes which show his ignorance about math:
-----
Where is the mathematical representation of your burden of
proof?
-----
If A = B then B = A.
If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
Dragging out your faulty math again, 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

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.

Just amazing how ignorant the trolls are.

You just tried to sell the idea that I'm the person who doesn't know
the difference between "absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof)
and the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt", yet, in
attempting it you provided statements made by me that were all from
discussions that had nothing to do with math? Of course, it's all
irrelevant anyway (which is why you keep bringing it up) because you
also admitted:

Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to
the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof"." - Snit

That's you admitting that you not only had *no* proof but you didn't
have *one single* true statement from which something else could
necessarily follow.

So why do you keep conflating math with this topic, Snit? Is there no
truth in your world other than math? Yes, that must be it., oh great
truth seeker. LOL!

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 5:36 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 24, 8:36 am, Snit wrote:
KDT stated in post
on
11/24/10 5:36 AM:

"Yes, you said Linux costs a $1 and Windows costs $30. Not that you
provided any support for that claim, but you repeat it over and
over anyway.

That would make Windows 97% more expensive than Linux, dunce. Not
3000% more expensive. "

These type of math errors are common with the trolls...

Survey: http://nitobi.com/survey/
241 of 571 said they use Dreamweaver (42%)
Tim Adams:
-----
_80% DO NOT USE Dreamweaver AT ALL_!
-----

And then there is Wally:
-----
I gave a clear example as to when a subset with 0 elements
would not actually be empty as you claimed that it would!
-----
But zero items does not necessarily translate to being empty
as you have said it would!
-----
whether it is written {} or {0} has no significance wrt what
the answer actually is
-----

And then there is Carroll, who rarely actually tries to do any type
of math directly, but has repeatedly shown he does not know the
difference between absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof) and
the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And he has some
interesting quotes which show his ignorance about math:
-----
Where is the mathematical representation of your burden of
proof?
-----
If A = B then B = A.
If A is synonymous with B then B is synonymous with A
Dragging out your faulty math again, 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

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.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my point.

Where you are getting confused, I suspect, is thinking "doubt" is the same
as "reasonable" doubt... and thinking that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
is the same as "proof".

A = B
B = C
A C

There is no way that is "absolutely true for all sane, honest and honorable
people". It is false. Period.

Just amazing how ignorant the trolls are.

You just tried to sell the idea that I'm the person who doesn't know
the difference between "absolute proof (as in a mathematical proof)
and the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt",

Which is true. You continually confuse the two. It is likely it is your
confusion of the two which lead to your confusion, above.

yet, in
attempting it you provided statements made by me that were all from
discussions that had nothing to do with math? Of course, it's all
irrelevant anyway (which is why you keep bringing it up) because you
also admitted:

The concept of "proof", in the above comments, was absolute proof. You got
confused and did not understand that.

Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal
series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else
necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points
to
the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a
logical sense, proof"." - Snit

A formal proof - logic and math. But that confused you. Got it.

That's you admitting that you not only had *no* proof but you didn't
have *one single* true statement from which something else could
necessarily follow.

I had strong evidence but not absolute proof. The idea that lack of proof
leads to a valid refutation is an "argument from ignorance". And it is a
fitting term - your ignorance is what has lead you to be lost with this
topic. For years. I have little hope you will ever understand the concept.

So why do you keep conflating math with this topic, Snit? Is there no
truth in your world other than math? Yes, that must be it., oh great
truth seeker. LOL!

You clearly are confusing ideas. Oh well. You have been doing so for
years.

LOL!



--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 26, 5:56*pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

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

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.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. *But thank you for proving my point. *

In context your first point pushes this idea:

'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact that
there is no proof of the allegation.

All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of guilt
the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed innocent until
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in certain cases,
according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this criteria in any
way. Here was one of my favorites by you:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Extremely funny stuff

Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
ever found pushing it.

(Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a presumption
of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

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

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.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my point.


In context your first point pushes this idea:

'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact that
there is no proof of the allegation.

All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of guilt
the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed innocent until
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in certain cases,
according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this criteria in any
way. Here was one of my favorites by you:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Extremely funny stuff

Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
ever found pushing it.

(Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a presumption
of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 8:31 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

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

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.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my point.


In context your first point pushes this idea:

'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact that
there is no proof of the allegation.

All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of guilt
the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed innocent until
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in certain cases,
according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this criteria in any
way. Here was one of my favorites by you:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Extremely funny stuff

Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
ever found pushing it.

(Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a presumption
of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)

LOL!

As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of absolute
proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You cannot help but prove it.

In a court there is almost never proof... hence the standard of proof
*beyond a reasonable doubt*. Really, Steve, it has been years of my telling
you this.. and years of you not getting it.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 26, 9:15*pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/26/10 8:31 PM:









Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

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

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.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my point.


In context your first point pushes this idea:

'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact that
there is no proof of the allegation.

All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of guilt
the same way a modern court does: *A person is presumed innocent until
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in certain cases,
according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this criteria in any
way. Here was one of my favorites by you:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute any
argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Extremely funny stuff

Fact: In court or out, *having no proof does not prove a guilt
allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
ever found pushing it.

(Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a presumption
of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)

LOL!

As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of absolute
proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have absoute
proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt... or any other
kind of proof. You ready to change your position on your statement
YET?

LOL!

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:15 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 8:31 PM:









Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

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

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.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my
point.

In context your first point pushes this idea:

'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact
that there is no proof of the allegation.

All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of
guilt the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed
innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in
certain cases, according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this
criteria in any way. Here was one of my favorites by you:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Extremely funny stuff

Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
ever found pushing it.

(Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a
presumption of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)

LOL!

As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have absoute
proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt... or any other
kind of proof. You ready to change your position on your statement
YET?

LOL!

LOL!

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 7:49 AM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:15 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 8:31 PM:









Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

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

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.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my
point.

In context your first point pushes this idea:

'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact
that there is no proof of the allegation.

All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of
guilt the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed
innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in
certain cases, according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this
criteria in any way. Here was one of my favorites by you:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Extremely funny stuff

Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
ever found pushing it.

(Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a
presumption of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)

LOL!

As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have absoute
proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt... or any other
kind of proof. You ready to change your position on your statement
YET?

LOL!

LOL!

You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a mathematical
proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is required in a US court of
law.

Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. I *know* you will
fail. You simply do not understand the difference.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 7:49 AM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:15 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 8:31 PM:









Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

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

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.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my
point.

In context your first point pushes this idea:

'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact
that there is no proof of the allegation.

All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of
guilt the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed
innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in
certain cases, according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit
this criteria in any way. Here was one of my favorites by you:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Extremely funny stuff

Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only
one ever found pushing it.

(Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a
presumption of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom.
LOL!)

LOL!

As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have
absoute proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt...
or any other kind of proof. You ready to change your position on
your statement YET?

LOL!

LOL!

You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a
mathematical proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is
required in a US court of law.

Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. I *know*
you will fail. You simply do not understand the difference.

**** you. Why don't you answer his questions first.

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

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 8:10 AM:

....
As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have
absoute proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt...
or any other kind of proof. You ready to change your position on
your statement YET?

LOL!

LOL!

You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a
mathematical proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is
required in a US court of law.

Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. I *know*
you will fail. You simply do not understand the difference.

**** you. Why don't you answer his questions first.

I did answer your questions, Steve: they are all answered by the fact you
are still confused between the two concepts I ask you about, above.

And, predictably, you will not even try to describe the differences. It has
baffled you for years - and, as you prove above, it baffles you still.

[Oh no! I used the word "prove"... Steve's head will now explode!]


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 7:56*am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 7:49 AM:





Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:15 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 8:31 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

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

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.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my
point.

In context your first point pushes this idea:

'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact
that there is no proof of the allegation.

All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of
guilt the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed
innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in
certain cases, according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit this
criteria in any way. Here was one of my favorites by you:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Extremely funny stuff

Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only one
ever found pushing it.

(Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a
presumption of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom. LOL!)

LOL!

As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have absoute
proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt... or any other
kind of proof. You ready to change your position on your statement
YET?

LOL!

LOL!

You

Yes, me... and I've pointed to the fact that you said you had *no*
proof (of any kind) for years. What about it?

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 29, 7:56 am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/29/10 7:49 AM:





Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:15 pm, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post
on 11/26/10 8:31 PM:

Steve Carroll wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:56 pm, Snit wrote:

(snip)

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

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.

No, Steve: it is utter rubbish. But thank you for proving my
point.

In context your first point pushes this idea:

'An allegation of guilt should not be doubted based on the fact
that there is no proof of the allegation.

All sane, honest and honorable people internalize the concept of
guilt the same way a modern court does: A person is presumed
innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (or, in
certain cases, according to law). Having no proof doesn't fit
this criteria in any way. Here was one of my favorites by you:

"Um, Steve, even in a court room a lack of proof does not refute
any argument that claims someone is guilty"- Snit

Extremely funny stuff

Fact: In court or out, having no proof does not prove a guilt
allegation. That idea is absurd, which is why you were the only
one ever found pushing it.

(Snit will now talk about his belief that the right to a
presumption of innocence has no place outside of a courtroom.
LOL!)

LOL!

As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish
a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers.
It's nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the
mind that something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything
about 'absolute proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you
didn't have absoute proof, you didn't have proof beyond a
reasonable doubt... or any other kind of proof. You ready to
change your position on your statement YET?

LOL!

LOL!

You

Yes, me... and I've pointed to the fact that you said you had *no*
proof (of any kind) for years. What about it?

LOL!

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

On Nov 29, 8:13*am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 8:10 AM:

...





As I have noted, Steve, you get confused between the concepts of
absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 court proof there certainly is evidence sufficient to establish a
thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth to observers. It's
nothing more than the effect of evidence in convincing the mind that
something is true. Notably, you didn't say anything about 'absolute
proof', you said you had NO proof. This means you didn't have
absoute proof, you didn't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt...
or any other kind of proof. You ready to change your position on
your statement YET?

LOL!

LOL!

You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a
mathematical proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is
required in a US court of law.

Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. *I *know*
you will fail. *You simply do not understand the difference.

**** you. *Why don't you answer his questions first.

I did answer your questions

There aren't any "questions" regarding the fact that you said you had
*no* proof (of any kind). What about it? Lemme guess... you're finally
ready to retract the statement?

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 8:26 AM:

You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a mathematical
proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is required in a US court of
law.

Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. I *know* you will
fail. You simply do not understand the difference.

Yes, me... and I've pointed to the fact that you said you had *no*
proof (of any kind) for years. What about it?

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 of the two concepts. How
pathetic.

--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Nov 29, 8:33*am, Snit wrote:
Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post on
11/29/10 8:26 AM:

You *still* are confusing the ideas of absolute proof, as in a mathematical
proof, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as is required in a US court of
law.

Here, maybe this will help you: try to describe the two. *I *know* you will
fail. *You simply do not understand the difference.

Yes, me... and I've pointed to the fact that you said you had *no*
proof (of any kind) for years. What about it?

LOL!

* Proof

Exactly... you said you had none at all (that means of any kind). What
about it? You're now ready to sing a different tune? So sing it
already.