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

In article <BFED5167.415E1%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
> noone-457197.12240313012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 1/13/06 12:24 PM:
>
> > 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.
>
> Ok, Steve, prove that the chair you are sitting on exists


OK... hold on. Yup... it's there alright. OK... I've proven it for
*me*. See your problem here YET, Mr. moron?

> - absolute proof
> with *no* room for logical disproof. Ever heard of the "brain in a vat"
> thought experiment?


LOL! You've GOT to be shitting me? Ever heard of the tube and a bag glue
experiment? I think you'd better cap off now;)

> Feel free to argue against it all you like.
>
> Do you *ever* say anything that you have actually thought about?

That you can't prove to yourself that the chair you are sitting on
exists surprises no one.


> >> "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;)
>
> Steve, even in law there is no demand for absolute proof.

Irrelevant... which is why you are bringing it up. In law there is a
demand for a certain level of proof. Admitting one has NO proof doesn't
meet the criteria.

> Ever heard of the
> concept of "reasonable doubt"? LOL! Again, Steve, do you *ever* think
> about what you are saying? Ever?

You admitted you had NO proof, Snit... this FAR surpasses the criteria
required for a reasonable doubt to exist in the mind of a sane person.

> >> 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.
>
> Steve, while not all cases are solved in a logical way, the concept of logic
> does not cease to apply when you talk about the law. Just imagine if you
> were a lawyer: you would argue that while logically your client has been
> shown to be guilty this is a legal context so the jury should ignore the
> facts. You would be laughed out of court and disbarred very, very quickly.
> Once again, do you *ever* think about what you are saying? Your inability
> to make a coherent point is rather tiring.

What has this inane, irrelevant drivel have to do with the fact that you
just admitted you had trouble mixing contexts?


> >> 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;)
>
> Look up, Steve. Remember how you like to talk about context? You know, the
> think you so often miss. Look at the context of my use of the word
> "synonymous". Nobody has argued against your straw man position that the
> word "synonymous" has more than one meaning,

No? Then why do you point to a reference where you are showing me one of
them? See how stupid you are yet;)

> but you spew that BS to
> obfuscate the context (or, perhaps, because you really cannot follow the
> context). Please, Steve, stop embarrassing yourself with your complete lack
> of ability to make a coherent point.

I made the point. You DO know what "subsequently" means, right?

> >> 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?
>
> Please, Steve, please read the info on this link and at least *try* to
> understand it: <http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/colb/20031022.html>.

I read it. It changes nothing... don't know why you would think it does.

> There is nothing wrong with looking at the facts and concluding that someone
> has broken a law. Nothing, Steve, though this concept also goes way over
> your head.

As I've said from day one, I already understand that what you were doing
was *opining*, Snit. I also understand that your *opinion* was based on
evidence even YOU claimed didn't prove a single thing. You are free to
hold any *opinion* you wish... but it's silly for you to claim that your
*opinions* are based on reason and logic when you are tacitly admitting
they are based on politicizing, bias and hatred.

> Not only are your math skills extremely weak, your repeated inability to
> understand such simple concepts shows your reading comprehension skills are
> all but nonexistent!

You are entitled to your *opinions*... but seeing as how you arrive at
them, don't expect other folks to give them much credence.

> So, Steve, how will you respond:
> A) Snip and run
> B) Obfuscate with tons of off topic BS
> C) Calling me names and spewing baseless accusations
> D) All of the above
>
> Really, Steve, do you have any other tricks up your sleeves these days? If
> that is all you do - and it likely will - do not expect any other response
> than my laughing at you and pointing out which of the trolling methods you
> use. In other words, Steve, if you want to achieve your ever-present goal
> of getting my attention you will *have* to be more creative than that.

No tricks required... just reality you keep running from.

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

Loading