Re: OT---How the mayor...

In article <BFED3859.415AF%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "Jim Polaski" <jpolaski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
> jpolaski-4DE825.11342513012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 1/13/06 10:34 AM:
>
> > of nothing, nowhere and nobody looks at Einstein and Quantum Theory.
> >
> > http://www.pcweenies.org/
>
> Better yet:
>
> "I cannot prove that 2+2=4" - Snit

You're also the guy who stated:

"I cannot prove beyond all certainty that the chair I sit on exists"

What's your point? That you mix medications to a detrimental effect?
Trust me, I seriously doubt anyone has missed this.

> "You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
> 100% doubt ... And THAT, my friend... is what a refutation feels
> like" - Steve Carroll
>
> [Too be fair Steve was spewing this nonsense in regards to something
> else,

Yeah... in regards to law. Of course, sane people recognize that law and
math can part in some pretty drastic ways where the concept of 'proof'
is concerned... which says a lot about you and the position you are
continuing to take. In a legal context, when there is *no* proof, that
would create doubt in the mind of a sane person... which is why you have
no doubt of Bush's guilt, despite claiming your evidence proved nothing;)

> but applying his "logic" to simple math shows how absolutely
> stupid his "reasoning" is.]

Actually, all it shows is that you are unable to comprehend the concept
of context... something you prove regularly on this ng. That you just
*admitted* I was addressing one context (law), while you thrust my
"logic" into another context (math), makes you appear to be the one that
is "stupid" here.

> and
>
> > 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;)
> - Steve Carroll
>
> [In this Steve was directly arguing against the property of
> equality/synonymy: <http://snipurl.com/kpfc>]

Not quite... I was arguing against you trying to draw another math
parallel like you just did above. Fact: There is more than one
definition of the word 'synonymous'... because of this, that you felt
compelled to subsequently point me to one of your choosing undermines
your claim here about what I was arguing against. See how "stupid" you
are YET;)

> Math and logic skills in the US could sure use some improvement if Steve
> Carroll is any indication of how people are!

Csma has been waiting for over 2 years now, Snit... feel free to explain
what math has to do with a guilt allegation and reasonable doubt at any
time;)

Better yet, explain this... Snit wrote:

"Bush is guilty of breaking the law."

Regarding the evidence Snit attempted to prove this argument with, Snit
wrote:

""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."

Problem time for Snit: In the U.S., the success of a guilt allegation
doesn't rest on the *opinion* of someone claiming his evidence offers
"strong support" for the allegation... and it's particularly problematic
when that *opinion* is accompanied by an admission that the evidence in
question "does not offer proof".

Snit... doesn't the smell get to you by now? Don't you think 2 years is
long enough for your head to be buried up your ass?

--
"The question is not about my behavior: the question is about your
admission about not being able to carry on a reasoned conversation."
.

Relevant Pages