OT: A rose by any other name....

[Steve Carroll]

Steve Carroll stated in post

> [e-mail] on > 11/29/10 12:59 PM: > > > > >> Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post [e-mail] o=

n

>> 11/29/10 11:56 AM: > > >>>> No one can make you move past 2003. > > >>> LOL! > > >> You did this mean as irony, right? > > > Asked the guy who stated his evidence didn't contain a single true > > statement from which something else could necessarily follow,yet, > > wants people to believe that evidence convinced him of someone's > > guilt. > > * Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept > * Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

Are you trying to argue that the former contains truth and the latter needn't?

(be careful. Snit... this path is fraught with pitfalls;)

[Snit]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf4177f$ [e-mail] on

11/29/10 2:13 PM:

...

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

• Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept

• Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

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

[Steve Carroll]

You forgot the 'h' ;)

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

[Snit]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post [e-mail] on

11/29/10 2:32 PM:

...

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

• Proof: as in that found in a mathematical proof, an absolute concept

• Proof: as in adjudication, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

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

[Steve Carroll]

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

[Snit]

Big Crotch on a Small Fish stated in post 4cf42165$ [e-mail] on

11/29/10 2:56 PM:

...

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

[Steve Carroll]

OK, glad to see we agree on this.