Disproving a mathematical proof

It was suggested to me that the following post is funny enough to repost in
its own thread. I snipped a little (the original is in the "Why I hate MS"
thread).

--------------------------------
"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@comcast.net> wrote on 1/7/04 6:51 PM:

> Remember: ALL legal arguments that purport guilt must assume a burden of
> proof. You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
> 100% doubt... which is far more than the reasonable doubt required to
> refute any legal argument purporting guilt. And THAT, my friend... is
> what a refutation feels like.

Again with the flip flop. Remember this item (you snipped it, of course):

I said:
"your argument can be fairly worded as: since I agreed there is not 100%
proof for my claim that Bush has broken US and International law, then that
in itself constitutes a valid refutation"

You responded with:
"Of course I don't agree, that's just another strawman"

So first you disagree with the idea that a lack of "100% proof for my claim
.... constitutes a valid refutation", then you claim "You stated that your
evidence offered no proof and that created 100% doubt ... And THAT, my
friend... is what a refutation feels like"

So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a refutation,
but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.

In a different notation, you are claiming:

Lack of proof = Doubt
Doubt = Valid Refutation
Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation

If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
your argument looks like:

A = B
B = C
A <> C

I had stated (but you snipped): "if you want to refute my comments
there ... you will need to refute the idea that A = C in the math, above.
And even then, you will have refuted those comments, not the argument in
question."

I did not mean that as a challenge. Let me be clear, you will not be able
to prove that A <> C. It is hilarious to see you try, and it will be just
as fun to watch you try to weasel out of this one.

Please Steve, treat me to more of your logical fallacies, side issues, nit
picking, semantic games, etc. They are really funny, and you keep digging
your hole deeper. And the funniest part is you *seem* to be serious!

>> No argument you make that does not comment on my conclusion or evidence is a
>> real attempt at a refutation, no matter how hard you try to repeatedly spin
>> it in different and self-contradictory ways.
>
> Yup... and I commented on your evidence. Remember? I used the fact that
> it offered 0% proof to refute your legal argument

As shown above, your attempt at a refutation is absurd, but *even if* you
refuted my comments about my argument, and even if I denounced my argument
(which I have not), that would not matter. You have yourself so twisted in
your own lack of logic that you are not even commenting on the very thing
you are trying to refute! I must say, even for you this was really off
base, I mean, did you really think you could refute a mathematical proof?

As I said, nothing new, nothing resembling a refutation of my argument,
nothing worthy in any meaningful way of comment, but, damn, this was fun.

In article <BC22BFDC.398D4%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

> It was suggested to me that the following post is funny enough to repost in
> its own thread. I snipped a little (the original is in the "Why I hate MS"
> thread).
>
> --------------------------------
> "Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@comcast.net> wrote on 1/7/04 6:51 PM:
>
> > Remember: ALL legal arguments that purport guilt must assume a burden of
> > proof. You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
> > 100% doubt... which is far more than the reasonable doubt required to
> > refute any legal argument purporting guilt. And THAT, my friend... is
> > what a refutation feels like.
>
> Again with the flip flop. Remember this item (you snipped it, of course):
>
With the exception of you, it's completely irrelevant what I, or anyone
else has EVER said about your argument or your evidence other than to
refute it by pointing out that, with respect to your evidecne, you
flatly stated "It does not offer proof". Why is this a problem for you?
Because you have an argument that bears the burden of proving it.
Someone is either guilty or he is not. As you are trying to suggest,
there is not a state of limbo in a such an argument. How do we decide
guilt? By looking at the evidence. You start off by having to prove your
argument is true... in other words, by bearing a burden of proof:

"In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example,
in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty
(hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution).

AND

"As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the
affirmative team."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fall...n-of-proof.html
--------------------------------------------------
We ARE engaged in a debate:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=debate
--------------------------------------------------
AND... the 'affirmative team' mentioned in the above 'debate' quote is
YOU... and that same link(www.nizkor.org) also proves that the only
RELEVANT logical fallacy being engaged in here is yours.

And... once again... below, is where you said your evidence "does not
offer proof":

************************************************** *********************
Steve Carroll wrote:

"Your argument asserted that a sitting President is a war criminal. You
agreed (a few paragraphs above) that the evidence you used to support
this was 'based on legalities' (based on the breaking, or not, of a
law)."

To which Snit answered:

"Yes. Very good."

Steve Carroll wrote:

"You have just admitted that your evidence does not prove this
assertion."

To which Snit answered:

"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."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=e...subject:Scary+i
nsubject:Article+author:Snit&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=BBFBA53B.34
A2D%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&rnum=9&filter=0

************************************************** *********************

You now have two logical courses of action and one illogical, irrelevant
course:

1 - show why your argument does not bear the burden of proof:

"As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the
affirmative team."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fall...n-of-proof.html

OR

2 - admit that your argument has been refuted on the grouds you told us
your evidence "does not offer proof".


OR


3 - You can do what you are doing, that is... continue displaying you
have little understanding how a logical argument is conducted by
addressing everything OTHER than the substance that refuted your
argument.

You have chosen course 3 for the simple reason that you CANNOT logically
address course 1 and you WILL NOT engage in course 2. Unfortunately, for
you, you are unable to effectively hide these facts.

Something extremely basic you are overlooking here, and I believe is the
source of your confusion, is the fact that the only thing that makes
this YOUR argument,(and YOUR challenge to refute it) is the fact that
YOU argued it. Why is this important? Simple. A COMPETENT person would
not have made the logical mistakes you made during the process of
arguing the very same evidence YOU presented. IOW, your evidence MAY, in
fact, offer proof that Bush is guilty of what you claimed in your
argument, but it did NOT offer proof of that claim as presented by YOU.
That's why YOUR argument, utilizing this same evidence, has been
refuted. I know... it's a tough pill to swallow and that's why you're SO
pissed off. I can't say I blame you but belaboring this obvious fact
doesn't do much for your credibility to conduct logical arguments in a
forum that is designed to do just that. How you claim to be having 'fun'
during these facts are beyond me ;-)

Steve

"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/8/04 8:57 AM:

> In article <BC22BFDC.398D4%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> It was suggested to me that the following post is funny enough to repost in
>> its own thread. I snipped a little (the original is in the "Why I hate MS"
>> thread).
>>
>> --------------------------------
>> "Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@comcast.net> wrote on 1/7/04 6:51 PM:
>>
>>> Remember: ALL legal arguments that purport guilt must assume a burden of
>>> proof. You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
>>> 100% doubt... which is far more than the reasonable doubt required to
>>> refute any legal argument purporting guilt. And THAT, my friend... is
>>> what a refutation feels like.
>>
>> Again with the flip flop. Remember this item (you snipped it, of course):
>>
> With the exception of you, it's completely irrelevant what I, or anyone
> else has EVER said about your argument or your evidence other than to
> refute it by pointing out that, with respect to your evidecne, you
> flatly stated "It does not offer proof". Why is this a problem for you?

This is funny, too, though not as funny as your disproof of mathematics:

I said:
"your argument can be fairly worded as: since I agreed there is not 100%
proof for my claim that Bush has broken US and International law, then that
in itself constitutes a valid refutation"

You responded with:
"Of course I don't agree, that's just another strawman"

Now you are arguing for what you were previously calling my straw man!

Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?

Anyway, back to the point of this thread (which you completely snipped) your
attempt to disprove mathematical proofs...

Come on Steve, in retrospect do you not find it the least bit funny that you
misunderstood my example, took it as a challenge, and tried to prove that if
A = B and B = C then A <> C. (Or did you attempt the mathematical disproof
for another reason?)

Here is your argument (since you snipped it) for your disproof of a
mathematical proof. Now tell me this is not funny.

******

So first you disagree with the idea that a lack of "100% proof for my claim
.... constitutes a valid refutation", then you claim "You stated that your
evidence offered no proof and that created 100% doubt ... And THAT, my
friend... is what a refutation feels like"

So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a refutation,
but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.

In a different notation, you are claiming:

Lack of proof = Doubt
Doubt = Valid Refutation
Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation

If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
your argument looks like:

A = B
B = C
A <> C

*****

Come on now, tell me Steve, isn't your pretzel logic funny, even to you.
Your response in this post to simply argue for what you previously called my
straw man pales in comparison, don't you think?

In article <BC22BFDC.398D4%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

Note that I am answering this post the second time for the express
purpose of pointing out that Snit does not comprehend what he reads.
Also, in evidence is the fact that none of what he has written here
attempts to knock down my refutation of his argument... it's all a giant
smokescreen designed to make the presenter of the refutation look bad.
As we have all seen too many times, this is a pretty common device when
one realizes all hope for his argument is lost. That he chose to do it
in a new thread,(after agreeing with me to stick to one thread for this
stupid argument) illuminates this better than anything I could ever do.

> It was suggested to me that the following post is funny enough to repost in
> its own thread. I snipped a little (the original is in the "Why I hate MS"
> thread).

Who made the suggestion? Sigmond?

> --------------------------------
> "Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@comcast.net> wrote on 1/7/04 6:51 PM:
>
> > Remember: ALL legal arguments that purport guilt must assume a burden of
> > proof. You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
> > 100% doubt... which is far more than the reasonable doubt required to
> > refute any legal argument purporting guilt. And THAT, my friend... is
> > what a refutation feels like.
>
> Again with the flip flop. Remember this item (you snipped it, of course):

Yeah... as it was only your strawman and wasn't relevant to refuting
your argument... I snipped it. I figured you've been given enough fuel
for your insanity joyride. I don't think anyone on the NG would disagree.

> I said:
> "your argument can be fairly worded as: since I agreed there is not 100%
> proof for my claim that Bush has broken US and International law, then that
> in itself constitutes a valid refutation"
>
> You responded with:
> "Of course I don't agree, that's just another strawman"
>
> So first you disagree with the idea that a lack of "100% proof for my claim
> ... constitutes a valid refutation"

Of course I disagreed, that was your strawman. What? You thought I
didn't recognize it as a strawman?

> , then you claim "You stated that your
> evidence offered no proof and that created 100% doubt ... And THAT, my
> friend... is what a refutation feels like"

Yup... and I still contend that you stated that your evidence offered 0%
proof, thereby, giving MORE than reasonable doubt,(all that's required
to refute your argument) it gives 100% doubt.

> So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a refutation,
> but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.

Sigh... A truly pathetic attempt and possibly your biggest 'lumpit' to
date As your own quoting of me has just shown, I DID deny that a lack
of 100% proof created a refutation,(this is your strawman). Why did I
deny this? Because stating that there is a lack of 100% proof COULD
still mean that 99.999% proof exists. That's *WHY* I pointed out that
you had 0% proof... so you wouldn't get confused over this... but you
did anyway!!! LOL! I think you're broken again...

Snit's newest lumpit:

A lack of 100% proof AND a 100% lack of proof

I will say that it APPEARS you aren't even aware you created a
strawman... it MAY have happened by accident when you applied 'lumpit
logic'. Because of this, I forgive you, but... even though I was taught
to be compassionate to those that have mental deficiencies, I can't help
but feel you deserve much of what you are getting right now.

> In a different notation, you are claiming:
>
> Lack of proof = Doubt
> Doubt = Valid Refutation
> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>
> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
> your argument looks like:
>
> A = B
> B = C
> A <> C
>
> I had stated (but you snipped): "if you want to refute my comments
> there ... you will need to refute the idea that A = C in the math, above.
> And even then, you will have refuted those comments, not the argument in
> question."

Spin, Snit SPIN!!!


> I did not mean that as a challenge. Let me be clear, you will not be able
> to prove that A <> C. It is hilarious to see you try, and it will be just
> as fun to watch you try to weasel out of this one.

Boing!!!! Oops... your mainspring just flew across the floor of your
cell(padded, of course). As I've just shown, your analysis doesn't fit
what you claim for MY position and it uses a generous dose of lumpit
logic in its creation. It only fits your 'lumpit logic' strawman, argued
on my behalf. At this point, I'd be more shocked if you DIDN'T come at
me with a feeble strawman. But keep trying... I'm sure your strawman
will improve over time... they just suck right now

> Please Steve, treat me to more of your logical fallacies, side issues, nit
> picking, semantic games, etc. They are really funny, and you keep digging
> your hole deeper. And the funniest part is you *seem* to be serious!

Yeah... I have a really deep hole I'm working on. If it wasn't in your
head... you might just be able to see it.

> >> No argument you make that does not comment on my conclusion or evidence is
> >> a
> >> real attempt at a refutation, no matter how hard you try to repeatedly
> >> spin
> >> it in different and self-contradictory ways.
> >
> > Yup... and I commented on your evidence. Remember? I used the fact that
> > it offered 0% proof to refute your legal argument
>
> As shown above, your attempt at a refutation is absurd,

Only if one cannot comprehend what one reads... and you pass that test
with flying colors.

> but *even if* you
> refuted my comments about my argument, and even if I denounced my argument
> (which I have not), that would not matter. You have yourself so twisted in
> your own lack of logic that you are not even commenting on the very thing
> you are trying to refute! I must say, even for you this was really off
> base, I mean, did you really think you could refute a mathematical proof?

Uh... sure, Snit... whatever you say (shaking head in TOTAL disbelief)

> As I said, nothing new, nothing resembling a refutation of my argument,
> nothing worthy in any meaningful way of comment, but, damn, this was fun.

Glad you enjoyed yourself... from what I'm told, masochists usually do

Steve

Steve Carroll wrote:
> In article <BC22BFDC.398D4%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
> Note that I am answering this post the second time for the express
> purpose of pointing out that Snit does not comprehend what he reads.
> Also, in evidence is the fact that none of what he has written here
> attempts to knock down my refutation of his argument... it's all a giant
> smokescreen designed to make the presenter of the refutation look bad.
> As we have all seen too many times, this is a pretty common device when
> one realizes all hope for his argument is lost. That he chose to do it
> in a new thread,(after agreeing with me to stick to one thread for this
> stupid argument) illuminates this better than anything I could ever do.
>
>
>>It was suggested to me that the following post is funny enough to repost in
>>its own thread. I snipped a little (the original is in the "Why I hate MS"
>>thread).
>
>
> Who made the suggestion? Sigmond?

You beat me to it!

>
>>--------------------------------
>>"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@comcast.net> wrote on 1/7/04 6:51 PM:
>>
>>
>>>Remember: ALL legal arguments that purport guilt must assume a burden of
>>>proof. You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
>>>100% doubt... which is far more than the reasonable doubt required to
>>>refute any legal argument purporting guilt. And THAT, my friend... is
>>>what a refutation feels like.
>>
>>Again with the flip flop. Remember this item (you snipped it, of course):
>
>
> Yeah... as it was only your strawman and wasn't relevant to refuting
> your argument... I snipped it. I figured you've been given enough fuel
> for your insanity joyride. I don't think anyone on the NG would disagree.
>
>
>>I said:
>>"your argument can be fairly worded as: since I agreed there is not 100%
>>proof for my claim that Bush has broken US and International law, then that
>>in itself constitutes a valid refutation"
>>
>>You responded with:
>>"Of course I don't agree, that's just another strawman"
>>
>>So first you disagree with the idea that a lack of "100% proof for my claim
>>... constitutes a valid refutation"
>
>
> Of course I disagreed, that was your strawman. What? You thought I
> didn't recognize it as a strawman?
>
>
>>, then you claim "You stated that your
>>evidence offered no proof and that created 100% doubt ... And THAT, my
>>friend... is what a refutation feels like"
>
>
> Yup... and I still contend that you stated that your evidence offered 0%
> proof, thereby, giving MORE than reasonable doubt,(all that's required
> to refute your argument) it gives 100% doubt.
>
>
>>So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a refutation,
>>but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.
>
>
> Sigh... A truly pathetic attempt and possibly your biggest 'lumpit' to
> date As your own quoting of me has just shown, I DID deny that a lack
> of 100% proof created a refutation,(this is your strawman). Why did I
> deny this? Because stating that there is a lack of 100% proof COULD
> still mean that 99.999% proof exists. That's *WHY* I pointed out that
> you had 0% proof... so you wouldn't get confused over this... but you
> did anyway!!! LOL! I think you're broken again...
>
> Snit's newest lumpit:
>
> A lack of 100% proof AND a 100% lack of proof

I don't believe I have ever seen Snit acknowledge the difference between the
two. Each time you've brought up "100% lack of proof," it seems as though he
reads it to mean "lack of 100% proof." Poor Snit.

> I will say that it APPEARS you aren't even aware you created a
> strawman... it MAY have happened by accident when you applied 'lumpit
> logic'. Because of this, I forgive you, but... even though I was taught
> to be compassionate to those that have mental deficiencies, I can't help
> but feel you deserve much of what you are getting right now.
>
>
>>In a different notation, you are claiming:
>>
>>Lack of proof = Doubt
>>Doubt = Valid Refutation
>>Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>
>>If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
>>your argument looks like:
>>
>>A = B
>>B = C
>>A <> C
>>
>>I had stated (but you snipped): "if you want to refute my comments
>>there ... you will need to refute the idea that A = C in the math, above.
>>And even then, you will have refuted those comments, not the argument in
>>question."
>
>
> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
>
>
>
>>I did not mean that as a challenge. Let me be clear, you will not be able
>>to prove that A <> C. It is hilarious to see you try, and it will be just
>>as fun to watch you try to weasel out of this one.
>
>
> Boing!!!! Oops... your mainspring just flew across the floor of your
> cell(padded, of course). As I've just shown, your analysis doesn't fit
> what you claim for MY position and it uses a generous dose of lumpit
> logic in its creation. It only fits your 'lumpit logic' strawman, argued
> on my behalf. At this point, I'd be more shocked if you DIDN'T come at
> me with a feeble strawman. But keep trying... I'm sure your strawman
> will improve over time... they just suck right now

The only thing Snit has proven is that *his* gross mischaracterizations of your
argument do not make sense, and that he takes delight in pointing out his own
stupendous, babbling misinformation.

>>Please Steve, treat me to more of your logical fallacies, side issues, nit
>>picking, semantic games, etc. They are really funny, and you keep digging
>>your hole deeper. And the funniest part is you *seem* to be serious!
>
>
> Yeah... I have a really deep hole I'm working on. If it wasn't in your
> head... you might just be able to see it.
>
>
>>>>No argument you make that does not comment on my conclusion or evidence is
>>>>a
>>>>real attempt at a refutation, no matter how hard you try to repeatedly
>>>>spin
>>>>it in different and self-contradictory ways.
>>>
>>>Yup... and I commented on your evidence. Remember? I used the fact that
>>>it offered 0% proof to refute your legal argument
>>
>>As shown above, your attempt at a refutation is absurd,
>
>
> Only if one cannot comprehend what one reads... and you pass that test
> with flying colors.
>
>
>>but *even if* you
>>refuted my comments about my argument, and even if I denounced my argument
>>(which I have not), that would not matter. You have yourself so twisted in
>>your own lack of logic that you are not even commenting on the very thing
>>you are trying to refute! I must say, even for you this was really off
>>base, I mean, did you really think you could refute a mathematical proof?
>
>
> Uh... sure, Snit... whatever you say (shaking head in TOTAL disbelief)

Well, Snit needs to learn how to define variables properly. He has jumped way in
advance of his capabilities by attempting proofs.

>>As I said, nothing new, nothing resembling a refutation of my argument,
>>nothing worthy in any meaningful way of comment, but, damn, this was fun.
>
>
> Glad you enjoyed yourself... from what I'm told, masochists usually do
>
> Steve


--
Snit: "Really - I have no clue." 1/4/04

You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my conclusion.
You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my support for my conclusion.

That leaves us with:
My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.

Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument. You do nothing but try to
explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of logical fallacies,
side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).

---------------------------

And you did not even comment on how funny your attempt to disprove a
mathematical proof was. All you did was try to flip flip and deny it. Sad.
Nothing new in this post is even funny.

"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/8/04 10:10 AM:

>> So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a refutation,
>> but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.
>
> Sigh... A truly pathetic attempt and possibly your biggest 'lumpit' to
> date As your own quoting of me has just shown, I DID deny that a lack
> of 100% proof created a refutation,(this is your strawman). Why did I
> deny this? Because stating that there is a lack of 100% proof COULD
> still mean that 99.999% proof exists.

Depends on how you use the word proof. In a mathematical or logical sense,
something is either proven or it is not. You cannot have a partial proof in
that sense.

In an argumentative or legal sense, though, you can; such as "proof beyond a
reasonable doubt".

In which sense do you use the word "proof". Seems you go back and forth to
suite your needs. Care to clarify here?

> That's *WHY* I pointed out that you had 0% proof...

If you mean "proof" as an absolute, then you saying I have 0% proof is
accurate, but shows *nothing*, as it does not refute my support. It just
states that my argument is not proven 100% beyond all theoretical disproofs.
No argument here, but it leaves us at:

My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.

--------------

If you mean "proof" in an argumentative, or even legal, sense, then my
argument does have partial "proof", or support. It can be found here:

http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_...defenders/#Case

Nowhere do you even mention my support (or partial proof, if you prefer).
Since you do not even mention my support, no argument here, but it leaves us
at:

My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.

>> In a different notation, you are claiming:
>>
>> Lack of proof = Doubt
>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>
>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
>> your argument looks like:
>>
>> A = B
>> B = C
>> A <> C
>
> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!

Which step do you claim is spin?

Snit wrote:

> You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my conclusion.
> You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my support for my conclusion.
>
> That leaves us with:
> My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.
>
> Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument. You do nothing but try to
> explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of logical fallacies,
> side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).

You make a poor student, Snit.

Find your errors and I will consider changing your grade from a 0.

> ---------------------------
>
> And you did not even comment on how funny your attempt to disprove a
> mathematical proof was. All you did was try to flip flip and deny it. Sad.
> Nothing new in this post is even funny.
>
> "Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/8/04 10:10 AM:
>
>
>>>So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a refutation,
>>>but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.
>>
>>Sigh... A truly pathetic attempt and possibly your biggest 'lumpit' to
>>date As your own quoting of me has just shown, I DID deny that a lack
>>of 100% proof created a refutation,(this is your strawman). Why did I
>>deny this? Because stating that there is a lack of 100% proof COULD
>>still mean that 99.999% proof exists.
>
>
> Depends on how you use the word proof. In a mathematical or logical sense,
> something is either proven or it is not. You cannot have a partial proof in
> that sense.
>
> In an argumentative or legal sense, though, you can; such as "proof beyond a
> reasonable doubt".
>
> In which sense do you use the word "proof". Seems you go back and forth to
> suite your needs. Care to clarify here?
>
>
>>That's *WHY* I pointed out that you had 0% proof...
>
>
> If you mean "proof" as an absolute, then you saying I have 0% proof is
> accurate, but shows *nothing*, as it does not refute my support. It just
> states that my argument is not proven 100% beyond all theoretical disproofs.
> No argument here, but it leaves us at:
>
> My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.
>
> --------------
>
> If you mean "proof" in an argumentative, or even legal, sense, then my
> argument does have partial "proof", or support. It can be found here:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_...defenders/#Case
>
> Nowhere do you even mention my support (or partial proof, if you prefer).
> Since you do not even mention my support, no argument here, but it leaves us
> at:
>
> My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.
>
>
>>>In a different notation, you are claiming:
>>>
>>>Lack of proof = Doubt
>>>Doubt = Valid Refutation
>>>Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>>
>>>If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
>>>your argument looks like:
>>>
>>>A = B
>>>B = C
>>>A <> C
>>
>>Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
>
>
> Which step do you claim is spin?

You can start here. Find your errors. I have already given you hints in a
previous post.

--
Snit: "Really - I have no clue." 1/4/04

Steve Carroll wrote:

I'm sorry for butting in. I really should let you be teacher on this one. I can
share. ;-)

--
Snit: "Really - I have no clue." 1/4/04

In article <BC22D243.398E8%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

> "Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/8/04 8:57 AM:
>
> > In article <BC22BFDC.398D4%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> It was suggested to me that the following post is funny enough to repost in
> >> its own thread. I snipped a little (the original is in the "Why I hate MS"
> >> thread).
> >>
> >> --------------------------------
> >> "Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@comcast.net> wrote on 1/7/04 6:51 PM:
> >>
> >>> Remember: ALL legal arguments that purport guilt must assume a burden of
> >>> proof. You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
> >>> 100% doubt... which is far more than the reasonable doubt required to
> >>> refute any legal argument purporting guilt. And THAT, my friend... is
> >>> what a refutation feels like.
> >>
> >> Again with the flip flop. Remember this item (you snipped it, of course):
> >>
> > With the exception of you, it's completely irrelevant what I, or anyone
> > else has EVER said about your argument or your evidence other than to
> > refute it by pointing out that, with respect to your evidecne, you
> > flatly stated "It does not offer proof". Why is this a problem for you?
>
> This is funny, too, though not as funny as your disproof of mathematics:
>
> I said:
> "your argument can be fairly worded as: since I agreed there is not 100%
> proof for my claim that Bush has broken US and International law, then that
> in itself constitutes a valid refutation"
>
> You responded with:
> "Of course I don't agree, that's just another strawman"
>
> Now you are arguing for what you were previously calling my straw man!
>
> Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?
>
> Anyway, back to the point of this thread (which you completely snipped) your
> attempt to disprove mathematical proofs...
>
> Come on Steve, in retrospect do you not find it the least bit funny that you
> misunderstood my example, took it as a challenge, and tried to prove that if
> A = B and B = C then A <> C. (Or did you attempt the mathematical disproof
> for another reason?)
>
> Here is your argument (since you snipped it) for your disproof of a
> mathematical proof. Now tell me this is not funny.
>
> ******
>
> So first you disagree with the idea that a lack of "100% proof for my claim
> ... constitutes a valid refutation", then you claim "You stated that your
> evidence offered no proof and that created 100% doubt ... And THAT, my
> friend... is what a refutation feels like"
>
> So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a refutation,
> but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.
>
> In a different notation, you are claiming:
>
> Lack of proof = Doubt
> Doubt = Valid Refutation
> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>
> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
> your argument looks like:
>
> A = B
> B = C
> A <> C
>
> *****
>
> Come on now, tell me Steve, isn't your pretzel logic funny, even to you.
> Your response in this post to simply argue for what you previously called my
> straw man pales in comparison, don't you think?
>

I already told you how you blew it. Why you insist in me rubbing your
nose in your own shit is beyond me. Furthermore, trying to attach simple
math to a legal argument is ridiculous. It doesn't work. Where is the
mathematical representation of your burden of proof? Yeah... it's
non-existent... just like your brain

Steve

In article <BC22E690.39A3C%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

> You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my conclusion.

Translation:

You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my conclusion that I am
willing to recognize.

> You do nothing here to even attempt to refute my support for my conclusion.

I have no need, you have done the work for me.

> That leaves us with:
> My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.

Only in your mind...

> Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument. You do nothing but try to
> explain why you should not (thorough the continued use of logical fallacies,
> side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games, etc.).

And what of your burden of proof? You seem to never talk about that. Why
is that, Snit?

> ---------------------------
>
> And you did not even comment on how funny your attempt to disprove a
> mathematical proof was. All you did was try to flip flip and deny it. Sad.
> Nothing new in this post is even funny.

Deny? Like in 'denying a burden of proof'?

> "Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/8/04 10:10 AM:
>
> >> So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a
> >> refutation,
> >> but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.
> >
> > Sigh... A truly pathetic attempt and possibly your biggest 'lumpit' to
> > date As your own quoting of me has just shown, I DID deny that a lack
> > of 100% proof created a refutation,(this is your strawman). Why did I
> > deny this? Because stating that there is a lack of 100% proof COULD
> > still mean that 99.999% proof exists.
>
> Depends on how you use the word proof. In a mathematical or logical sense,
> something is either proven or it is not. You cannot have a partial proof in
> that sense.

Irrelevant to the lumpit you used. Anyway, I guess I COULD always go
back to where you pointed out that your evidence offers no proof(0%)
even in a LOGICAL sense

Steve Carroll wrote:

"You have just admitted that your evidence does not prove this
assertion."

To which Snit answered:

"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."

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=e...subject:Scary+i
nsubject:Article+author:Snit&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=BBFBA53B.34
A2D%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&rnum=9&filter=0


.... but personally... I don't find that particular statement all that
logical. LOL!

> In an argumentative or legal sense, though, you can; such as "proof beyond a
> reasonable doubt".
>
> In which sense do you use the word "proof". Seems you go back and forth to
> suite your needs. Care to clarify here?

How can you even tell where I am? You have repeatedly shown you don't
know where YOU are. You've tried to use SO many words in SO many ways
you can't keep track BTW... why'd you snip out the newest toy here?
It really was a fine lumpit, you know...

A lack of 100% proof AND a 100% lack of proof

Yeah... you really understood what you were saying there, didn't you?

> > That's *WHY* I pointed out that you had 0% proof...
>
> If you mean "proof" as an absolute, then you saying I have 0% proof is
> accurate, but shows *nothing*, as it does not refute my support. It just
> states that my argument is not proven 100% beyond all theoretical disproofs.
> No argument here, but it leaves us at:
>
> My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.

Except you STILL fail to address the little matter that the burden of
proof belongs to you. Do you EVER intend on addressing it?

> --------------
>
> If you mean "proof" in an argumentative, or even legal, sense, then my
> argument does have partial "proof", or support. It can be found here:
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_...defenders/#Case
>
> Nowhere do you even mention my support (or partial proof, if you prefer).

It's not ANY kind of proof. You made that VERY clear.

> Since you do not even mention my support, no argument here, but it leaves us
> at:
>
> My argument stands with support and has not been successfully refuted.

There's a little thing called the burden of proof that says differently

> >> In a different notation, you are claiming:
> >>
> >> Lack of proof = Doubt
> >> Doubt = Valid Refutation
> >> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> >>
> >> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" =
> >> C,
> >> your argument looks like:
> >>
> >> A = B
> >> B = C
> >> A <> C
> >
> > Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
>
> Which step do you claim is spin?

The step where you refuse to talk about your burden of proof.

Steve

In article <3ffd9714$0$70307$75868355@news.frii.net>,
Elizabot <toolittletoolate@poo.com> wrote:

> Steve Carroll wrote:
> > In article <BC22BFDC.398D4%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> > Note that I am answering this post the second time for the express
> > purpose of pointing out that Snit does not comprehend what he reads.
> > Also, in evidence is the fact that none of what he has written here
> > attempts to knock down my refutation of his argument... it's all a giant
> > smokescreen designed to make the presenter of the refutation look bad.
> > As we have all seen too many times, this is a pretty common device when
> > one realizes all hope for his argument is lost. That he chose to do it
> > in a new thread,(after agreeing with me to stick to one thread for this
> > stupid argument) illuminates this better than anything I could ever do.
> >
> >
> >>It was suggested to me that the following post is funny enough to repost in
> >>its own thread. I snipped a little (the original is in the "Why I hate MS"
> >>thread).
> >
> >
> > Who made the suggestion? Sigmond?
>
> You beat me to it!
>
> >
> >>--------------------------------
> >>"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@comcast.net> wrote on 1/7/04 6:51 PM:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Remember: ALL legal arguments that purport guilt must assume a burden of
> >>>proof. You stated that your evidence offered no proof and that created
> >>>100% doubt... which is far more than the reasonable doubt required to
> >>>refute any legal argument purporting guilt. And THAT, my friend... is
> >>>what a refutation feels like.
> >>
> >>Again with the flip flop. Remember this item (you snipped it, of course):
> >
> >
> > Yeah... as it was only your strawman and wasn't relevant to refuting
> > your argument... I snipped it. I figured you've been given enough fuel
> > for your insanity joyride. I don't think anyone on the NG would disagree.
> >
> >
> >>I said:
> >>"your argument can be fairly worded as: since I agreed there is not 100%
> >>proof for my claim that Bush has broken US and International law, then that
> >>in itself constitutes a valid refutation"
> >>
> >>You responded with:
> >>"Of course I don't agree, that's just another strawman"
> >>
> >>So first you disagree with the idea that a lack of "100% proof for my claim
> >>... constitutes a valid refutation"
> >
> >
> > Of course I disagreed, that was your strawman. What? You thought I
> > didn't recognize it as a strawman?
> >
> >
> >>, then you claim "You stated that your
> >>evidence offered no proof and that created 100% doubt ... And THAT, my
> >>friend... is what a refutation feels like"
> >
> >
> > Yup... and I still contend that you stated that your evidence offered 0%
> > proof, thereby, giving MORE than reasonable doubt,(all that's required
> > to refute your argument) it gives 100% doubt.
> >
> >
> >>So the lack of proof created doubt, and the doubt you claim is a
> >>refutation,
> >>but you deny that the lack of proof created a refutation.
> >
> >
> > Sigh... A truly pathetic attempt and possibly your biggest 'lumpit' to
> > date As your own quoting of me has just shown, I DID deny that a lack
> > of 100% proof created a refutation,(this is your strawman). Why did I
> > deny this? Because stating that there is a lack of 100% proof COULD
> > still mean that 99.999% proof exists. That's *WHY* I pointed out that
> > you had 0% proof... so you wouldn't get confused over this... but you
> > did anyway!!! LOL! I think you're broken again...
> >
> > Snit's newest lumpit:
> >
> > A lack of 100% proof AND a 100% lack of proof
>
> I don't believe I have ever seen Snit acknowledge the difference between the
> two. Each time you've brought up "100% lack of proof," it seems as though he
> reads it to mean "lack of 100% proof." Poor Snit.

And I don't believe he will, he's too embarrassed. It's gotta be tough
on him, ya know... he created a special thread just for the purpose of
making me look foolish and it blew up on him. Now, he just keeps
spinning in place.

> > I will say that it APPEARS you aren't even aware you created a
> > strawman... it MAY have happened by accident when you applied 'lumpit
> > logic'. Because of this, I forgive you, but... even though I was taught
> > to be compassionate to those that have mental deficiencies, I can't help
> > but feel you deserve much of what you are getting right now.
> >
> >
> >>In a different notation, you are claiming:
> >>
> >>Lack of proof = Doubt
> >>Doubt = Valid Refutation
> >>Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> >>
> >>If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" = C,
> >>your argument looks like:
> >>
> >>A = B
> >>B = C
> >>A <> C
> >>
> >>I had stated (but you snipped): "if you want to refute my comments
> >>there ... you will need to refute the idea that A = C in the math, above.
> >>And even then, you will have refuted those comments, not the argument in
> >>question."
> >
> >
> > Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
> >
> >
> >
> >>I did not mean that as a challenge. Let me be clear, you will not be able
> >>to prove that A <> C. It is hilarious to see you try, and it will be just
> >>as fun to watch you try to weasel out of this one.
> >
> >
> > Boing!!!! Oops... your mainspring just flew across the floor of your
> > cell(padded, of course). As I've just shown, your analysis doesn't fit
> > what you claim for MY position and it uses a generous dose of lumpit
> > logic in its creation. It only fits your 'lumpit logic' strawman, argued
> > on my behalf. At this point, I'd be more shocked if you DIDN'T come at
> > me with a feeble strawman. But keep trying... I'm sure your strawman
> > will improve over time... they just suck right now
>
> The only thing Snit has proven is that *his* gross mischaracterizations of
> your
> argument do not make sense, and that he takes delight in pointing out his own
> stupendous, babbling misinformation.

I truly wonder if he actually believes the stuff he's spouting or not.

> >>Please Steve, treat me to more of your logical fallacies, side issues, nit
> >>picking, semantic games, etc. They are really funny, and you keep digging
> >>your hole deeper. And the funniest part is you *seem* to be serious!
> >
> >
> > Yeah... I have a really deep hole I'm working on. If it wasn't in your
> > head... you might just be able to see it.
> >
> >
> >>>>No argument you make that does not comment on my conclusion or evidence
> >>>>is
> >>>>a
> >>>>real attempt at a refutation, no matter how hard you try to repeatedly
> >>>>spin
> >>>>it in different and self-contradictory ways.
> >>>
> >>>Yup... and I commented on your evidence. Remember? I used the fact that
> >>>it offered 0% proof to refute your legal argument
> >>
> >>As shown above, your attempt at a refutation is absurd,
> >
> >
> > Only if one cannot comprehend what one reads... and you pass that test
> > with flying colors.
> >
> >
> >>but *even if* you
> >>refuted my comments about my argument, and even if I denounced my argument
> >>(which I have not), that would not matter. You have yourself so twisted in
> >>your own lack of logic that you are not even commenting on the very thing
> >>you are trying to refute! I must say, even for you this was really off
> >>base, I mean, did you really think you could refute a mathematical proof?
> >
> >
> > Uh... sure, Snit... whatever you say (shaking head in TOTAL disbelief)
>
> Well, Snit needs to learn how to define variables properly. He has jumped way
> in
> advance of his capabilities by attempting proofs.

So it would seem...

> >>As I said, nothing new, nothing resembling a refutation of my argument,
> >>nothing worthy in any meaningful way of comment, but, damn, this was fun.
> >
> >
> > Glad you enjoyed yourself... from what I'm told, masochists usually do
> >
> > Steve

Steve

I presented an argument that included a conclusion and support. To refute
it, you did not even mention that. Here is what you have done:


Level I: Avoided the argument in question (side issues)

You keep trying to refute my comments about my argument, and fail to mention
the argument itself. The closest you have done is to mention the
conclusion, but you fail to show the converse of the conclusion.

In order to have a chance at refuting my argument you need to actually
refute my argument. If you are not going to mention the support in the
argument, then you need to refute the conclusion (that Bush broke US and
International law by using force against Iraq). You have yet to mention why
Bush has not broken the law. [1]

But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
clearly have been. Let us say that you somehow show where you can refute an
argument without commenting on it. Do that, and then we can discuss level
II.



Level II: Use of logical fallacies

You continually jump back to the "Argument from Ignorance" where you assume
if something is not proven then it must be false (or refuted). Your whole
line of "reasoning" is based on this. Nothing more. [2]

But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
clearly have been. Let us say that you somehow show where logically what you
were arguing for was accurate, *without* the use of this or other fallacies.
Do that, and then we can discuss level III.



Level III: Word games. [3]

You mangle language or try to "trick" people into contradicting themselves.
You failed, of course, but you keep trying. And in doing so, you end up
contradicting yourself - repeatedly. I used these contradictions to show
how you were arguing against a mathematical proof. Your "pretzel logic" was
quite funny.

But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
clearly have been. You can show I am wrong by differentiating and defining
the words I show in the footnote. Do that, and stop playing your level I
and II games, and you might have a chance at a refutation.


This leaves us where we have been for a long, long, tiresome, time:

Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument.

You do nothing but try to explain why you should not (thorough the continued
use of logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games,
etc.).

My argument *still* stands with support and has not been successfully
refuted. [4]

----------------

Ok, back to where I was before - this is getting nowhere. All you will do
is deny deny deny. Much like Elizabot.

If you want to present some sort of argument that does not rely on your III
levels of game playing, let me know. Other than that, do not expect a
response. I tried once to humor you by letting you just ask questions. I
trusted that you would eventually get to an attempt at a refutation. You
did not, instead, you used at least three levels of games. You broke the
trust (which, face it, was a gift even then).










Footnotes:

[1] I think I know your games by now. You will claim: *What, the burden of
proof is on you! I do not need to show this." No, you do not need to show
why my conclusion is faulty *if* you show how my support does not lead to
this. You have not done so. If you want to support *your* argument, the
burden of proof (as in support, not mathematical "proof") is on you!

----

[2] In the following exchange I point out very clearly where you are wrong.
You say it is spin. I ask you which part, and you do not even refer to my
comments! Hmmmm, is this more side issues or poor logic on your part? What
do you think?

>>>> Lack of proof = Doubt
>>>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
>>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>>>
>>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" =
>>>> C,
>>>> your argument looks like:
>>>>
>>>> A = B
>>>> B = C
>>>> A <> C
>>>
>>> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
>>
>> Which step do you claim is spin?
>
> The step where you refuse to talk about your burden of proof.

----

[3] Words and phrases you have "accidentally" used in different ways or
completely misused, and the ways you have used them include, but are
probably not limited to:

* being a criminal AND legally being determined to be a criminal
* an argument AND a statement
* an argument AND a proof
* a judgment AND a adjudication
* a defendant AND a defender
* what an argument is AND what an argument is about
* proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as
in a trial)
* an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
* a legal system AND a judicial system
* an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an argument
that can only be categorized as a legal argument
* defense of an argument AND an argument
* evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
* Snit AND Josh (AND Sigmond)
* an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
* a lack of proof AND a disproof
* evidence AND proof
* an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
system
* guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
* order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an argument

----

[4] Elizabot decided that there is no possibility that I am wrong. I know
she flip flopped on that idea when she realized she was using a logical
fallacy (that I also used), but it was her reasoning that lead to her
decision.

Snit:
It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here: "with
the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations
have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."

Elizabot:
I do not agree with that statement at all.

Snit:
Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
seem to agree to that statement.

Elizabot:
Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."

Snit:
So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
the logical possibility that I am wrong." Fair enough. While I do not
accept your argument that there is no logical chance I am wrong, I will not
argue with it.

Seems you and I share the common view that there is a logical possibility I
may be wrong, and Elizabot disagrees.

In article <BC2327F5.39A91%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

> I presented an argument that included a conclusion and support. To refute
> it, you did not even mention that. Here is what you have done:

What you are now calling your 'support', you once called your 'evidence
'. Since I've been continually bringing up the point that you stated
your 'evidence' offered NOTHING in the way of actually proving your
claim, you now only use the word 'support'. Just thought I'd point that
out In a LEGAL argument that purports guilt, your 'support' must
prove, beyond reasonable doubt, your claim of guilt. If, what you are
now calling your 'support'. is the exact same material you used to refer
to as your 'evidence'... (and it HAS to be because I KNOW you would
never change anything without telling anyone, right?) then you have
already told us, with respect to proving your argument beyond a
reasonable doubt (the burden an argument like yours DOES bear)... that
your 'support' is no better than what you used to call your 'evidence'.
IOW, it doesn't prove your claim beyond a reasonable doubt either.

>
> Level I: Avoided the argument in question (side issues)
>
> You keep trying to refute my comments about my argument, and fail to mention
> the argument itself. The closest you have done is to mention the
> conclusion, but you fail to show the converse of the conclusion.

So you've said... And here's my tapeloop: You NEVER address it but you
are still faced with that little burden of proving your argument beyond
reasonable doubt. Well, you can't do it when you have told us yourself
that the material you presented with the intention of proving your
claim, in fact, offered NO proof at all. Couple this with the fact that
your argument bears the burden of proof,(a thing you have YET to comment
on) and we have your argument solidly refuted.

> In order to have a chance at refuting my argument you need to actually
> refute my argument.

You're in error here,(wow... who woulda guessed Any argument can be
refuted if it isn't presented properly.

> If you are not going to mention the support in the
> argument, then you need to refute the conclusion (that Bush broke US and
> International law by using force against Iraq). You have yet to mention why
> Bush has not broken the law. [1]

And THIS is where you've got it all assbackwards, showing, once again,
that you simply don't understand your position when making an assertion,
especially a guilt assertion in an argument based on the law. When
making such an assertion, YOU bear the burden of proof. I don't have to
mention why Bush has not broken the law, YOU have to mention why he
has... in fact, you must do MORE than merely mention it, you must PROVE
it beyond a reasonable doubt. Like I've said about 8000 times now, you
can't do it when you have told us yourself that the material you
presented with the intention of proving your claim beyond reasonable
doubt, in fact, offered NO proof at all.


> But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
> clearly have been.

The only pretending going on here is being done by you. You're
pretending you are still in your argument... reality shows you are not.
You are not even attempting to address the fact that the burden of proof
belongs to you. That is the ONLY logical way you can proceed at this
point. I've instructed you as to this fact over and over, yet, you run
away from it. You run because you know it's the truth. If it wasn't, you
could easily knock it down. You don't come near it and it's obvious as
hell why you don't.

> Let us say that you somehow show where you can refute an
> argument without commenting on it. Do that, and then we can discuss level
> II.
>
>
>
> Level II: Use of logical fallacies
>
> You continually jump back to the "Argument from Ignorance" where you assume
> if something is not proven then it must be false (or refuted). Your whole
> line of "reasoning" is based on this. Nothing more. [2]
>
> But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
> clearly have been. Let us say that you somehow show where logically what you
> were arguing for was accurate, *without* the use of this or other fallacies.
> Do that, and then we can discuss level III.

As I have already shown, only the opposing side has the ability to
assert the proposing side is making an Argumentum ad ignorantiam. WHY?
Because the side making the proposition bears the burden of proof in
most any logical argument, but ALWAYS bears it in any argument that
purports guilt based on the law. You are using this fallacy out of
context because you are ignoring that you have the burden of proof.

> Level III: Word games. [3]
>
> You mangle language or try to "trick" people into contradicting themselves.
> You failed, of course, but you keep trying. And in doing so, you end up
> contradicting yourself - repeatedly. I used these contradictions to show
> how you were arguing against a mathematical proof. Your "pretzel logic" was
> quite funny.
>
> But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
> clearly have been. You can show I am wrong by differentiating and defining
> the words I show in the footnote. Do that, and stop playing your level I
> and II games, and you might have a chance at a refutation.

YOU are accusing ME of word games? LOL!! I don't think there can be a
larger example of projection. You have sought to redefine almost every
word you have used at some point or other. You have also changed words
out over and over in an attempt to save yourself... it hasn't worked
yet. I don't need a chance at refutation... it has already been
accomplished.

>
> This leaves us where we have been for a long, long, tiresome, time:
>
> Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument.

And that's exactly what you are now choking on, my refutation. You don't
like the WAY I refuted you because it points out how poorly you
presented your argument.

> You do nothing but try to explain why you should not (thorough the continued
> use of logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games,
> etc.).

More projection. How about that burden of proof issue?... Still won't
touch it, eh?

> My argument *still* stands with support and has not been successfully
> refuted. [4]

Keep repeating it...
> ----------------
>
> Ok, back to where I was before - this is getting nowhere. All you will do
> is deny deny deny. Much like Elizabot.

I'm not denying anything. I'm still waiting for you to address the
burden of proof issue you keep avoiding. Gee... I wonder why you won't
address it... ;-)

> If you want to present some sort of argument that does not rely on your III
> levels of game playing, let me know. Other than that, do not expect a
> response. I tried once to humor you by letting you just ask questions. I
> trusted that you would eventually get to an attempt at a refutation. You
> did not, instead, you used at least three levels of games. You broke the
> trust (which, face it, was a gift even then).

You talking about trust? You must be joking! LOL! You are engaged in an
endless cycle of spin and project... spin and project...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Footnotes:
>
> [1] I think I know your games by now. You will claim: *What, the burden of
> proof is on you! I do not need to show this." No, you do not need to show
> why my conclusion is faulty *if* you show how my support does not lead to
> this. You have not done so. If you want to support *your* argument, the
> burden of proof (as in support, not mathematical "proof") is on you!

Well this certainly doesn't address the fact that the burden of proof is
on the person making the guilt assertion.

> ----
>
> [2] In the following exchange I point out very clearly where you are wrong.
> You say it is spin. I ask you which part, and you do not even refer to my
> comments! Hmmmm, is this more side issues or poor logic on your part? What
> do you think?

Hmmm... this doesn't address the fact that the burden of proof is on the
person making the guilt assertion, either. All it shows is that you
don't understand that your argument bears the burden of proof and you're
TRYING,(unsuccessfully) to project that onto the opposing side. Due to
your inability to understand your position in your own argument, you're
using an argumentum ad ignorantiam out of ignorance(as well as out of
context). Oh... the irony


> >>>> Lack of proof = Doubt
> >>>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
> >>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> >>>>
> >>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" =
> >>>> C,
> >>>> your argument looks like:
> >>>>
> >>>> A = B
> >>>> B = C
> >>>> A <> C
> >>>
> >>> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
> >>
> >> Which step do you claim is spin?
> >
> > The step where you refuse to talk about your burden of proof.

Still no answer to this? Still not going to address it, I see...

> ----
>
> [3] Words and phrases you have "accidentally" used in different ways or
> completely misused, and the ways you have used them include, but are
> probably not limited to:
>
> * being a criminal AND legally being determined to be a criminal
> * an argument AND a statement
> * an argument AND a proof
> * a judgment AND a adjudication
> * a defendant AND a defender
> * what an argument is AND what an argument is about
> * proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as
> in a trial)
> * an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
> * a legal system AND a judicial system
> * an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an argument
> that can only be categorized as a legal argument
> * defense of an argument AND an argument
> * evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
> * Snit AND Josh (AND Sigmond)
> * an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
> * a lack of proof AND a disproof
> * evidence AND proof
> * an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
> system
> * guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
> * order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an argument

Those are all your lumpits, projected onto me. Just like everything else
you are doing, all along the way ... projecting your deficiencies onto
others. You are only bothering with this weak tactic because you cannot
address the actual refutation of your argument and you somehow figure it
will be obscured with this dimestore smokescreen. It may be all you have
left but it's not working...

> ----
>
> [4] Elizabot decided that there is no possibility that I am wrong. I know
> she flip flopped on that idea when she realized she was using a logical
> fallacy (that I also used), but it was her reasoning that lead to her
> decision.

This is just another in a long line of smokescreens that doesn't
actually address the refutation based on the fact that you bear the
burden of proving your argument beyond reasonable doubt.

> Snit:
> It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here: "with
> the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations
> have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."
>
> Elizabot:
> I do not agree with that statement at all.
>
> Snit:
> Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
> seem to agree to that statement.
>
> Elizabot:
> Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
>
> Snit:
> So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
> the logical possibility that I am wrong." Fair enough. While I do not
> accept your argument that there is no logical chance I am wrong, I will not
> argue with it.
>
> Seems you and I share the common view that there is a logical possibility I
> may be wrong, and Elizabot disagrees.

Because you have shown it so very often, I think your ability to analyze
is completely riddled with lumpit logic. I would wait for the bot to
respond before I believed a word you say because you are a bold faced
liar who will stop at nothing to save what is left of his face.

Steve

Well, again you completely fail to mention my argument in your attempt at a
refutation. Very little in your long list of repeated mistakes interesting,
but a couple points do jump out. Nothing comes close to an attempt at a
refutation, but the following amused me.

-----

> I don't have to mention why Bush has not broken the law, YOU have to mention
> why he has... in fact, you must do MORE than merely mention it, you must PROVE
> it beyond a reasonable doubt.

OK. Here is my evidence that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_...defenders/#Case

Care to actually comment on my argument? Please note that my support has
not changed at all since the start of this silliness. It still is there.
It still is unrefuted, and, in your case, hardly if at all mentioned.

> Like I've said about 8000 times now, you can't do it when you have told us
> yourself that the material you presented with the intention of proving your
> claim beyond reasonable doubt, in fact, offered NO proof at all.

It does not offer proof as in a mathematical proof (and therefore it is not
a proof), but I think it can be clearly stated that it offers proof beyond
any reasonable doubt. See, if you want to create some reasonable doubt for
the argument, you will have to state why you doubt it. The fact that it is
not a mathematical proof does not count. Though, then again, you have tried
to disprove a mathematical proof at least once.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...ewwindow=1&safe
=off&selm=BC22BFDC.398D4%25snit%40nospam-cableone.net

That was really funny. You failed at that, too, by the way. Look below for
the references - you have yet to even state why you *think* my
representation is incorrect!

------

>>>>>> Lack of proof = Doubt
>>>>>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
>>>>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" =
>>>>>> C, your argument looks like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A = B
>>>>>> B = C
>>>>>> A <> C
>>>>>
>>>>> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!

So here you claim that I am spinning the idea that your argument is an
attempt to disprove a mathematical proof. You called it spin, but when I
asked about which step was spin, you failed to state where I am wrong.
Twice now I have asked you about this, and twice you have gone onto side
issues. If my claim is spin, certainly you can tell me where it is wrong.
Can you now, or will you just jump to another issue again?

I would place good money on the idea that you will not point out which step
of mine you see as spin and then comment on why they are spin. Let us see
if my prediction is correct. (You *are* so predictably evasive in defending
yourself and in such deep denial that I would make this bet even knowing you
want me to lose it and could make me lose with by simply explaining what
step you think I am spinning!)

-------------

>> [3] Words and phrases you have "accidentally" used in different ways or
>> completely misused, and the ways you have used them include, but are
>> probably not limited to:
>>
>> * being a criminal AND legally being determined to be a criminal
>> * an argument AND a statement
>> * an argument AND a proof
>> * a judgment AND a adjudication
>> * a defendant AND a defender
>> * what an argument is AND what an argument is about
>> * proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as
>> in a trial)
>> * an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
>> * a legal system AND a judicial system
>> * an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an argument
>> that can only be categorized as a legal argument
>> * defense of an argument AND an argument
>> * evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
>> * Snit AND Josh (AND Sigmond)
>> * an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
>> * a lack of proof AND a disproof
>> * evidence AND proof
>> * an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
>> system
>> * guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
>> * order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an argument

I have been asking for definitions of these things you keep confusing for a
long time. You have not done so. You will never define these terms - to do
so would show how much you have been playing word games. Plain and simple.
Again, I could make the same type bet as above; and I would just as surely
win.

------

> You talking about trust? You must be joking! LOL! You are engaged in an
> endless cycle of spin and project... spin and project...

Remember it was you who stated: Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna
give a shit about breaking my word to a deviant like yourself... "

You also said "That was why I decided to try and trick you ..." At least
there you noted it was just an attempt, other places you claim to have done
so.

You have stated both that your word means nothing and that you are trying to
"trick" me. You are not trying to use honesty or show integrity, as I am.
Why should I, or anyone really, trust anything you ever say?

-------

I left the rest intact to reduce your chances of saying I snipped something
important, but nowhere below do you even comment on my argument. You yet
again fail to do anything that even comes close to an attempt at a
refutation.

"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/8/04 7:18 PM:

> In article <BC2327F5.39A91%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> I presented an argument that included a conclusion and support. To refute
>> it, you did not even mention that. Here is what you have done:
>
> What you are now calling your 'support', you once called your 'evidence
> '. Since I've been continually bringing up the point that you stated
> your 'evidence' offered NOTHING in the way of actually proving your
> claim, you now only use the word 'support'. Just thought I'd point that
> out In a LEGAL argument that purports guilt, your 'support' must
> prove, beyond reasonable doubt, your claim of guilt. If, what you are
> now calling your 'support'. is the exact same material you used to refer
> to as your 'evidence'... (and it HAS to be because I KNOW you would
> never change anything without telling anyone, right?) then you have
> already told us, with respect to proving your argument beyond a
> reasonable doubt (the burden an argument like yours DOES bear)... that
> your 'support' is no better than what you used to call your 'evidence'.
> IOW, it doesn't prove your claim beyond a reasonable doubt either.
>
>>
>> Level I: Avoided the argument in question (side issues)
>>
>> You keep trying to refute my comments about my argument, and fail to mention
>> the argument itself. The closest you have done is to mention the
>> conclusion, but you fail to show the converse of the conclusion.
>
> So you've said... And here's my tapeloop: You NEVER address it but you
> are still faced with that little burden of proving your argument beyond
> reasonable doubt. Well, you can't do it when you have told us yourself
> that the material you presented with the intention of proving your
> claim, in fact, offered NO proof at all. Couple this with the fact that
> your argument bears the burden of proof,(a thing you have YET to comment
> on) and we have your argument solidly refuted.
>
>> In order to have a chance at refuting my argument you need to actually
>> refute my argument.
>
> You're in error here,(wow... who woulda guessed Any argument can be
> refuted if it isn't presented properly.
>
>> If you are not going to mention the support in the
>> argument, then you need to refute the conclusion (that Bush broke US and
>> International law by using force against Iraq). You have yet to mention why
>> Bush has not broken the law. [1]
>
> And THIS is where you've got it all assbackwards, showing, once again,
> that you simply don't understand your position when making an assertion,
> especially a guilt assertion in an argument based on the law. When
> making such an assertion, YOU bear the burden of proof. I don't have to
> mention why Bush has not broken the law, YOU have to mention why he
> has... in fact, you must do MORE than merely mention it, you must PROVE
> it beyond a reasonable doubt. Like I've said about 8000 times now, you
> can't do it when you have told us yourself that the material you
> presented with the intention of proving your claim beyond reasonable
> doubt, in fact, offered NO proof at all.
>
>
>> But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
>> clearly have been.
>
> The only pretending going on here is being done by you. You're
> pretending you are still in your argument... reality shows you are not.
> You are not even attempting to address the fact that the burden of proof
> belongs to you. That is the ONLY logical way you can proceed at this
> point. I've instructed you as to this fact over and over, yet, you run
> away from it. Yo run because you know it's the truth. If it wasn't, you
> could easily knock it down. You don't come near it and it's obvious as
> hell why you don't.
>
>> Let us say that you somehow show where you can refute an
>> argument without commenting on it. Do that, and then we can discuss level
>> II.
>>
>>
>>
>> Level II: Use of logical fallacies
>>
>> You continually jump back to the "Argument from Ignorance" where you assume
>> if something is not proven then it must be false (or refuted). Your whole
>> line of "reasoning" is based on this. Nothing more. [2]
>>
>> But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
>> clearly have been. Let us say that you somehow show where logically what you
>> were arguing for was accurate, *without* the use of this or other fallacies.
>> Do that, and then we can discuss level III.
>
> As I have already shown, only the opposing side has the ability to
> assert the proposing side is making an Argumentum ad ignorantiam. WHY?
> Because the side making the proposition bears the burden of proof in
> most any logical argument, but ALWAYS bears it in any argument that
> purports guilt based on the law. You are using this fallacy out of
> context because you are ignoring that you have the burden of proof.
>
>> Level III: Word games. [3]
>>
>> You mangle language or try to "trick" people into contradicting themselves.
>> You failed, of course, but you keep trying. And in doing so, you end up
>> contradicting yourself - repeatedly. I used these contradictions to show
>> how you were arguing against a mathematical proof. Your "pretzel logic" was
>> quite funny.
>>
>> But let us pretend you were not doing that. Pretend mind you, for you
>> clearly have been. You can show I am wrong by differentiating and defining
>> the words I show in the footnote. Do that, and stop playing your level I
>> and II games, and you might have a chance at a refutation.
>
> YOU are accusing ME of word games? LOL!! I don't think there can be a
> larger example of projection. You have sought to redefine almost every
> word you have used at some point or other. You have also changed words
> out over and over in an attempt to save yourself... it hasn't worked
> yet. I don't need a chance at refutation... it has already been
> accomplished.
>
>>
>> This leaves us where we have been for a long, long, tiresome, time:
>>
>> Nothing but a refutation refutes an argument.
>
> And that's exactly what you are now choking on, my refutation. You don't
> like the WAY I refuted you because it points out how poorly you
> presented your argument.
>
>> You do nothing but try to explain why you should not (thorough the continued
>> use of logical fallacies, side issues, nit picking, playing semantic games,
>> etc.).
>
> More projection. How about that burden of proof issue?... Still won't
> touch it, eh?
>
>> My argument *still* stands with support and has not been successfully
>> refuted. [4]
>
> Keep repeating it...
>> ----------------
>>
>> Ok, back to where I was before - this is getting nowhere. All you will do
>> is deny deny deny. Much like Elizabot.
>
> I'm not denying anything. I'm still waiting for you to address the
> burden of proof issue you keep avoiding. Gee... I wonder why you won't
> address it... ;-)
>
>> If you want to present some sort of argument that does not rely on your III
>> levels of game playing, let me know. Other than that, do not expect a
>> response. I tried once to humor you by letting you just ask questions. I
>> trusted that you would eventually get to an attempt at a refutation. You
>> did not, instead, you used at least three levels of games. You broke the
>> trust (which, face it, was a gift even then).
>
> You talking about trust? You must be joking! LOL! You are engaged in an
> endless cycle of spin and project... spin and project...
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Footnotes:
>>
>> [1] I think I know your games by now. You will claim: *What, the burden of
>> proof is on you! I do not need to show this." No, you do not need to show
>> why my conclusion is faulty *if* you show how my support does not lead to
>> this. You have not done so. If you want to support *your* argument, the
>> burden of proof (as in support, not mathematical "proof") is on you!
>
> Well this certainly doesn't address the fact that the burden of proof is
> on the person making the guilt assertion.
>
>> ----
>>
>> [2] In the following exchange I point out very clearly where you are wrong.
>> You say it is spin. I ask you which part, and you do not even refer to my
>> comments! Hmmmm, is this more side issues or poor logic on your part? What
>> do you think?
>
> Hmmm... this doesn't address the fact that the burden of proof is on the
> person making the guilt assertion, either. All it shows is that you
> don't understand that your argument bears the burden of proof and you're
> TRYING,(unsuccessfully) to project that onto the opposing side. Due to
> your inability to understand your position in your own argument, you're
> using an argumentum ad ignorantiam out of ignorance(as well as out of
> context). Oh... the irony
>
>
>>>>>> Lack of proof = Doubt
>>>>>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
>>>>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation" =
>>>>>> C,
>>>>>> your argument looks like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A = B
>>>>>> B = C
>>>>>> A <> C
>>>>>
>>>>> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
>>>>
>>>> Which step do you claim is spin?
>>>
>>> The step where you refuse to talk about your burden of proof.
>
> Still no answer to this? Still not going to address it, I see...
>
>> ----
>>
>> [3] Words and phrases you have "accidentally" used in different ways or
>> completely misused, and the ways you have used them include, but are
>> probably not limited to:
>>
>> * being a criminal AND legally being determined to be a criminal
>> * an argument AND a statement
>> * an argument AND a proof
>> * a judgment AND a adjudication
>> * a defendant AND a defender
>> * what an argument is AND what an argument is about
>> * proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt (as
>> in a trial)
>> * an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
>> * a legal system AND a judicial system
>> * an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an argument
>> that can only be categorized as a legal argument
>> * defense of an argument AND an argument
>> * evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
>> * Snit AND Josh (AND Sigmond)
>> * an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
>> * a lack of proof AND a disproof
>> * evidence AND proof
>> * an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
>> system
>> * guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
>> * order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an argument
>
> Those are all your lumpits, projected onto me. Just like everything else
> you are doing, all along the way ... projecting your deficiencies onto
> others. You are only bothering with this weak tactic because you cannot
> address the actual refutation of your argument and you somehow figure it
> will be obscured with this dimestore smokescreen. It may be all you have
> left but it's not working...
>
>> ----
>>
>> [4] Elizabot decided that there is no possibility that I am wrong. I know
>> she flip flopped on that idea when she realized she was using a logical
>> fallacy (that I also used), but it was her reasoning that lead to her
>> decision.
>
> This is just another in a long line of smokescreens that doesn't
> actually address the refutation based on the fact that you bear the
> burden of proving your argument beyond reasonable doubt.
>
>> Snit:
>> It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here: "with
>> the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations
>> have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."
>>
>> Elizabot:
>> I do not agree with that statement at all.
>>
>> Snit:
>> Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
>> seem to agree to that statement.
>>
>> Elizabot:
>> Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
>>
>> Snit:
>> So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
>> the logical possibility that I am wrong." Fair enough. While I do not
>> accept your argument that there is no logical chance I am wrong, I will not
>> argue with it.
>>
>> Seems you and I share the common view that there is a logical possibility I
>> may be wrong, and Elizabot disagrees.
>
> Because you have shown it so very often, I think your ability to analyze
> is completely riddled with lumpit logic. I would wait for the bot to
> respond before I believed a word you say because you are a bold faced
> liar who will stop at nothing to save what is left of his face.
>
> Steve

Snit wrote:

Wrong, Snit. I disagreed with the statement as a whole. You have made the error
known as the Fallacy of Division. Quit spreading your lies.

Here is your statement broken down into 3 parts.

Snit appears to be right.

There are no clear refutation to Snit's argument.

There is the logical possibility that Snit are wrong.


I have said that I did not agree to the statement AS A WHOLE. That does not mean
that I disagree with each individual part.

You have earned 0 points on this lesson.

> [4] Elizabot decided that there is no possibility that I am wrong. I know
> she flip flopped on that idea when she realized she was using a logical
> fallacy (that I also used), but it was her reasoning that lead to her
> decision.
>
> Snit:
> It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here: "with
> the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations
> have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."
>
> Elizabot:
> I do not agree with that statement at all.
>
> Snit:
> Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
> seem to agree to that statement.
>
> Elizabot:
> Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
>
> Snit:
> So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
> the logical possibility that I am wrong." Fair enough. While I do not
> accept your argument that there is no logical chance I am wrong, I will not
> argue with it.
>
> Seems you and I share the common view that there is a logical possibility I
> may be wrong, and Elizabot disagrees.
>


--
Snit: "Really - I have no clue." 1/4/04

"Elizabot" <toolittletoolate@poo.com> wrote on 1/8/04 10:51 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>
> Wrong, Snit. I disagreed with the statement as a whole. You have made the
> error known as the Fallacy of Division. Quit spreading your lies.
>
> Here is your statement broken down into 3 parts.
>
> Snit appears to be right.
>
> There are no clear refutation to Snit's argument.
>
> There is the logical possibility that Snit are wrong.
>
>
> I have said that I did not agree to the statement AS A WHOLE. That does not
> mean that I disagree with each individual part.

Nice back peddle attempt, but not at all accurate. I presented those three
"parts" of my statement (which, by the way, you messed up on in your
assessment of), you stated in a rather rude tone:

Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."

Now, had you meant that you disagreed with a specific part, you would have
stated so. You did not say that you do not agree with some of its parts,
but you did not agree with the statement "at all".

You are now trying to claim that you agreed with some parts of it, but
disagreed with other.

So which is it? Do you not agree with the statement "at all", or do you
agree with some parts of the statement but not others.

Hmmm, funny how you and Steve make so many mistakes; oh yes, you admitted
you were the same person.




>
> You have earned 0 points on this lesson.
>
>> [4] Elizabot decided that there is no possibility that I am wrong. I know
>> she flip flopped on that idea when she realized she was using a logical
>> fallacy (that I also used), but it was her reasoning that lead to her
>> decision.
>>
>> Snit:
>> It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here: "with
>> the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations
>> have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."
>>
>> Elizabot:
>> I do not agree with that statement at all.
>>
>> Snit:
>> Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
>> seem to agree to that statement.
>>
>> Elizabot:
>> Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
>>
>> Snit:
>> So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
>> the logical possibility that I am wrong." Fair enough. While I do not
>> accept your argument that there is no logical chance I am wrong, I will not
>> argue with it.
>>
>> Seems you and I share the common view that there is a logical possibility I
>> may be wrong, and Elizabot disagrees.
>>
>

In article <BC236757.39AFB%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:

> Well, again you completely fail to mention my argument in your attempt at a
> refutation. Very little in your long list of repeated mistakes interesting,
> but a couple points do jump out. Nothing comes close to an attempt at a
> refutation, but the following amused me.

Sigh... as I've already said many, many times now... I have no need.

> -----
>
> > I don't have to mention why Bush has not broken the law, YOU have to
> > mention
> > why he has... in fact, you must do MORE than merely mention it, you must
> > PROVE
> > it beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> OK. Here is my evidence that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_...defenders/#Case

ROTFLMAO!!! Totally unacceptable (but down below, I'll even address the
use of this evidence for this purpose... just to be sporting). Your
website can change from day to day and probably has every damned day.
Your ORIGINAL legal argument is any material you presented prior to the
posting of the following discussion:

A poster wrote:

> and? i said it's *more* about what it can't do, versus what it can't, not
> *exclusively* about what it can't do.

To which Snit replied:

"My point was that the Constitution allows declaring war for the sake of
self defense. The combat in Iraq is neither a war *nor* for self
defense."
>
>> Pre-emptive strikes on other countries for the sake of oil (and
revenge) does
>> not constitute "defense",

The poster continued with:

> yeah, see, there's those unsupported assumptions of yours again. care to
> support that the strike was just for oil and revenge? didn't think so.
__________________________________________________ ____________________
And the very next line, (below), Snit mentions that his evidence for
the SAME argument has been already presented:

"The evidence has been provided in this thread and in other places. If
you have one shred of counter evidence, I would love to hear it. Do
you?"

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g...en&lr=&ie=UTF-8
&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995&as_maxd=1
&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=2003&selm=BBF1683F.331B7%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
&rnum=213


It's important to note that when I subsequently asked you to tell me
exactly what your legal argument was, you changed what you HAD been
arguing to the following:

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...UTF-8&scoring=d
&as_drrb=b&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995&as_maxd=3&as_maxm=12&as_maxy
=2003&selm=BBF40FD3.33995%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net&rnum=221

NOW, you have AGAIN attempted to change your legal argument... to the
content on your website, content that is obviously different than what
you told me it was when I asked you... and WAYYYYYYyyyyyy different
than the content presented prior to that.

IOW... yours is a moving target replete with lies and deceit, just like
I, and many others, have pointed out for over a month now. You are a
disingenuous, bald faced liar and the above attempt proves it, AGAIN


> Care to actually comment on my argument? Please note that my support has
> not changed at all since the start of this silliness. It still is there.
> It still is unrefuted, and, in your case, hardly if at all mentioned.

Flip flop...let's get it straight, is it merely 'support' that your
claim he is legally guilty MAY be true... OR is it 'evidence' that your
claim he is legally guilty IS true. TODAY, (which, I suspect will be
different than tomorrow directly above your link, you stated the
latter. Realize you will be answering this question under an atmosphere
where your argument bears the burden of proof and you have ALREADY
stated this material,(whatever you are calling it today) offered no
proof of anything, in a legal OR a logical sense,(yes, you've said
both). Of course, you also said it never changed and THAT was a lie,(as
I've just shown up top). NOW, you seem to be asserting that it IS
evidence and that it DOES offer proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
Bush IS legally guilt of breaking the laws you claim. OR .. wait a
minute... is he only MORALLY guilty of doing all that? No, you
definitely told us that it was in a LEGAL sense that you are making your
claim and that such moral arguments, "don't count". Also, you definitely
said your claim was in a REAL and not a THEORETICAL sense, so your claim
*MUST* be what I just said it was.

What we now have is... along with the fact that you previously stated
the material you ORIGINALLY presented as your 'evidence' offered NO
proof of your ORIGINAL claim, you are NOW claiming that what you
presented (on your website) IS evidence (as opposed to support) and that
it DOES offer proof, in a legal sense, (as opposed to logical, moral or
mathematical sense) beyond reasonable doubt that Bush REALLY (as opposed
to theoretically) *IS* (as opposed to 'is not') legally (as opposed to
logically, morally or mathematically) guilty of breaking the laws you
claim. No question of that. See your problem yet? You still don't get
it, do you? LOL!

> > Like I've said about 8000 times now, you can't do it when you have told us
> > yourself that the material you presented with the intention of proving your
> > claim beyond reasonable doubt, in fact, offered NO proof at all.
>
> It does not offer proof as in a mathematical proof (and therefore it is not
> a proof), but I think it can be clearly stated that it offers proof beyond
> any reasonable doubt. See, if you want to create some reasonable doubt for
> the argument, you will have to state why you doubt it.

Read above. Anyway... no, I don't... because YOU already stated that
you doubted it was proof, in fact, you clearly stated it was NOT proof.
All I need is to refer to your text as support of that. It's a major
misstep in the presentation of your argument. You're still missing it...
coming out the gate, YOU needed to prove something... I didn't need to
disprove anything. You stated your evidence offered no proof. Now, you
are trying to change THAT, too (though it still won't get you anywhere
with respect to what your argument is actually arguing...as I've just
shown above). All you do in spin in any direction you think will keep
you alive. This is just one way I can refute it. If you've been paying
attention, you've just seen that I refuted it another way up above.

> The fact that it is
> not a mathematical proof does not count. Though, then again, you have tried
> to disprove a mathematical proof at least once.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...ewwindow=1&safe
> =off&selm=BC22BFDC.398D4%25snit%40nospam-cableone.net
>
> That was really funny. You failed at that, too, by the way. Look below for
> the references - you have yet to even state why you *think* my
> representation is incorrect!

Actually, what was funny was that your analysis creating your
'mathematical proof' was created on your use of lumpit logic That you
are still even mentioning it shows how clueless your are. If I were in
your shoes, I'd never want to see that post again because, it proves,
beyond ALL doubt, that you cannot differentiate between things ordinary
people have no trouble differentiating between. Additionally,(not that
anything NEEDS to added to show how ridiculous your position is) your
'mathematical proof' fails to take into account YOUR burden of proof.
Guess WHY?

I'm sorry, I realize this may seem cruel... but I've just GOT to look at
what caused your inaccuracy again...

A lack of 100% proof AND a 100% lack of proof

Wow... and you claim to TEACH people things... astounding!

> ------
>
> >>>>>> Lack of proof = Doubt
> >>>>>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
> >>>>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation"
> >>>>>> =
> >>>>>> C, your argument looks like:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A = B
> >>>>>> B = C
> >>>>>> A <> C
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
>
> So here you claim that I am spinning the idea that your argument is an
> attempt to disprove a mathematical proof. You called it spin, but when I
> asked about which step was spin, you failed to state where I am wrong.
> Twice now I have asked you about this, and twice you have gone onto side
> issues. If my claim is spin, certainly you can tell me where it is wrong.
> Can you now, or will you just jump to another issue again?

Same issue. Where is your burden of proof mathematically represented?

> I would place good money on the idea that you will not point out which step
> of mine you see as spin and then comment on why they are spin.

Strawman. Your analysis does not reflect the actual conditions of the
argument and, as I pointed out again... was based on your inability to
distinguish between the following two items:

A lack of 100% proof AND a 100% lack of proof

It's like a good song... I just can't seem to play it enough

> Let us see
> if my prediction is correct. (You *are* so predictably evasive in defending
> yourself and in such deep denial that I would make this bet even knowing you
> want me to lose it and could make me lose with by simply explaining what
> step you think I am spinning!)
>
> -------------
>
> >> [3] Words and phrases you have "accidentally" used in different ways or
> >> completely misused, and the ways you have used them include, but are
> >> probably not limited to:
> >>
> >> * being a criminal AND legally being determined to be a criminal
> >> * an argument AND a statement
> >> * an argument AND a proof
> >> * a judgment AND a adjudication
> >> * a defendant AND a defender
> >> * what an argument is AND what an argument is about
> >> * proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt
> >> (as
> >> in a trial)
> >> * an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
> >> * a legal system AND a judicial system
> >> * an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an argument
> >> that can only be categorized as a legal argument
> >> * defense of an argument AND an argument
> >> * evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
> >> * Snit AND Josh (AND Sigmond)
> >> * an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
> >> * a lack of proof AND a disproof
> >> * evidence AND proof
> >> * an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
> >> system
> >> * guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
> >> * order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an argument
>
> I have been asking for definitions of these things you keep confusing for a
> long time. You have not done so. You will never define these terms - to do
> so would show how much you have been playing word games. Plain and simple.
> Again, I could make the same type bet as above; and I would just as surely
> win.

Your above list of projected lumpits are irrelevant... which is why you
are attempting to use them... to obscure the fact that you cannot
address the real refutation. You made an argument that purports Bush IS
legally guilty of breaking laws. Reality shows that has not yet been
proven... which is why, depsite your protests to the contrary that your
argument is REAL, I've told you all along, it's ONLY theoretical.
Because of the nature of the argument and what is implicit, you aren't
aware of what your own argument is actually arguing and it's frustrating
the hell out of you. You started off by saying Bush IS a terrorist and a
war criminal and you bolstered those statements by creating a legal
position for them. The only problem is, while what you said MAY be true
in a moral sense, it's definitely NOT true in a legal sense, to date. It
may someday be true... but not today. That's why it's called a
THEORETICAL legal argument... something I've tried to convince you of
for a long time now. Given enough time you, will eventually change your
argument to something that you feel will provide you with a win,(you
could care less about your argument, the win is the important thing for
you). Reality will show that it won't remotely resemble your original
argument. It will HAVE to be reworded within the confines of HOW you
presented it because your original has been refuted on at least two
grounds within the confines of your presentation.

> ------
>
> > You talking about trust? You must be joking! LOL! You are engaged in an
> > endless cycle of spin and project... spin and project...
>
> Remember it was you who stated: Yeah... sue me. LOL!!! Like I'm really gonna
> give a shit about breaking my word to a deviant like yourself... "

LOL! I STILL don't give a shit and there's no reason I should. In going
back through the 'Scary Article' thread I saw an unbelievable amount of
outright lies, gross misrepresentations, and word redefinitions on your
part... and several people pointed them out all along the way. Do you
seriously expect others to play fair with you when you conduct yourself
like that? The real world doesn't work that way, pal... you forced
others to trick you with your own words because your actions were so
disingenuous (and stupid, thereby, enabling others to trick you).

> You also said "That was why I decided to try and trick you ..." At least
> there you noted it was just an attempt, other places you claim to have done
> so.
>
> You have stated both that your word means nothing and that you are trying to
> "trick" me. You are not trying to use honesty or show integrity, as I am.
> Why should I, or anyone really, trust anything you ever say?

How COULD I trick you if you didn't give me the ammo in the form of
making mistakes presenting your argument? Look, Snit... even a non-legal
logical debate has a judge... do you honestly think he would have let
you continually move the goalposts like you have? Believe me... that's a
fantasy that belongs all to you

> -------
>
> I left the rest intact to reduce your chances of saying I snipped something
> important, but nowhere below do you even comment on my argument. You yet
> again fail to do anything that even comes close to an attempt at a
> refutation.

I'll snip... it's still sits on google for retrieval

Steve

Snit wrote:
> "Elizabot" <toolittletoolate@poo.com> wrote on 1/8/04 10:51 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>Wrong, Snit. I disagreed with the statement as a whole. You have made the
>>error known as the Fallacy of Division. Quit spreading your lies.
>>
>>Here is your statement broken down into 3 parts.
>>
>>Snit appears to be right.
>>
>>There are no clear refutation to Snit's argument.
>>
>>There is the logical possibility that Snit are wrong.
>>
>>
>>I have said that I did not agree to the statement AS A WHOLE. That does not
>>mean that I disagree with each individual part.
>
>
> Nice back peddle attempt, but not at all accurate. I presented those three
> "parts" of my statement (which, by the way, you messed up on in your
> assessment of), you stated in a rather rude tone:
>
> Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
>
> Now, had you meant that you disagreed with a specific part, you would have
> stated so.

Nope.

> You did not say that you do not agree with some of its parts,
> but you did not agree with the statement "at all".

Correct.

> You are now trying to claim that you agreed with some parts of it, but
> disagreed with other.

Nope.

> So which is it? Do you not agree with the statement "at all", or do you
> agree with some parts of the statement but not others.

I disagree with the statement as you have written it. I would have written "I
don't agree with any part of that statement" if that is what I had meant.

> Hmmm, funny how you and Steve make so many mistakes; oh yes, you admitted
> you were the same person.

Nope. Your confusing myself with Steve demonstrates your reading comprehension
problem.

>
>
>>You have earned 0 points on this lesson.
>>
>>
>>>[4] Elizabot decided that there is no possibility that I am wrong. I know
>>>she flip flopped on that idea when she realized she was using a logical
>>>fallacy (that I also used), but it was her reasoning that lead to her
>>>decision.
>>>
>>>Snit:
>>>It actually seems as though you, Steve, and I are in agreement here: "with
>>>the idea that while I appear to be right, and no clear accurate refutations
>>>have been made, there is the logical possibility that I am wrong."
>>>
>>>Elizabot:
>>>I do not agree with that statement at all.
>>>
>>>Snit:
>>>Really? Why not? Do you think that Steve still disagrees? Ok, you and I
>>>seem to agree to that statement.
>>>
>>>Elizabot:
>>>Can't you read? "I do not agree with that statement at all."
>>>
>>>Snit:
>>>So you do not agree with any part of it, even the part where I say "there is
>>>the logical possibility that I am wrong." Fair enough. While I do not
>>>accept your argument that there is no logical chance I am wrong, I will not
>>>argue with it.
>>>
>>>Seems you and I share the common view that there is a logical possibility I
>>>may be wrong, and Elizabot disagrees.
>>>
>>
>


--
Snit: "Really - I have no clue." 1/4/04

In the below it becomes clear that you believe:

1) You do not need to reference an argument to refute it.
2) You do not even need to know an argument to refute it.

After close to 150 references or quoting of my argument, you *still* admit
to not even knowing what my argument is.

Just what is it you think you have refuted? If you have refuted some other
argument other than the one begins with "Based on the US Constitution" (and
can be found at:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_...defenders/#Case) then not even
you claim to be refuting my argument.

Do you or do you not claim to have refuted that argument?

Oh, and in both the hypothetical bets that I mentioned, I would have won.
No doubt.

Recently Elizabot claimed you and she were the same person; I doubt it, you
are clearly not in her league. Why she was following you around like a lost
puppy I have no idea.


"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/9/04 10:42 AM:

> In article <BC236757.39AFB%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, again you completely fail to mention my argument in your attempt at a
>> refutation. Very little in your long list of repeated mistakes interesting,
>> but a couple points do jump out. Nothing comes close to an attempt at a
>> refutation, but the following amused me.
>
> Sigh... as I've already said many, many times now... I have no need.

Let me make sure I understand this, you believe you have no need to even
mention my argument in an attempt to refute it.

>>> I don't have to mention why Bush has not broken the law, YOU have to
>>> mention
>>> why he has... in fact, you must do MORE than merely mention it, you must
>>> PROVE
>>> it beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>> OK. Here is my evidence that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>
>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_...defenders/#Case
>
> ROTFLMAO!!! Totally unacceptable (but down below, I'll even address the
> use of this evidence for this purpose... just to be sporting). Your
> website can change from day to day and probably has every damned day.

Let's seem I have at least 80 posts where I have stated or quoted the
argument, and most of those times were when I was directly talking with you:

http://www.google.com/groups?num=10...F-8&newwindow=1
&safe=off&scoring=d&q=+%22Based+on+the+US+Constitution%22+author%3ASni t&btnG
=Google+Search

You even have at least 19 posts where it is quoted:

http://www.google.com/groups?q=+%22...%22+autho r:St
eve+author:Carroll&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&
scoring=d&filter=0

Now, granted, some of those are surely in quotes from previous articles, but
you have about 100 examples from the two of us... if you combine other
people it is closer to 150 times that quotes from my argument have been
posted:

http://www.google.com/groups?q=+%22...on%22+Snit&num=
100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&scoring=d&filter=0

How many times do you need it referenced? Will 150 do? We are getting
close. Do you need 200 times? 500?

>> Care to actually comment on my argument? Please note that my support has
>> not changed at all since the start of this silliness. It still is there.
>> It still is unrefuted, and, in your case, hardly if at all mentioned.
>
> Flip flop...let's get it straight, is it merely 'support' that your
> claim he is legally guilty MAY be true... OR is it 'evidence' that your
> claim he is legally guilty IS true.

See if this helps you (definitions from Google)

Support:
"Establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts..."

"Support with evidence or authority or make more certain or confirm ..."

Hmmm, those definitions of "support" use the word "evidence".



Evidence:
"Information in the form of personal testimony, documents or objects filed
in support of the issue in question."

"That which tends to support something or show that something is the case."

And those definitions of "evidence" use the word "support"



Unless you are being very nit picky, AND playing semantic games (gee, you
would never do that!), seems they are darn near the same. You still are
ignoring my argument that has been referenced almost 150 times *without
changing* while claiming to refute it.

>>>>>>>> Lack of proof = Doubt
>>>>>>>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
>>>>>>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid Refutation"
>>>>>>>> =
>>>>>>>> C, your argument looks like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A = B
>>>>>>>> B = C
>>>>>>>> A <> C
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
>>
>> So here you claim that I am spinning the idea that your argument is an
>> attempt to disprove a mathematical proof. You called it spin, but when I
>> asked about which step was spin, you failed to state where I am wrong.
>> Twice now I have asked you about this, and twice you have gone onto side
>> issues. If my claim is spin, certainly you can tell me where it is wrong.
>> Can you now, or will you just jump to another issue again?
>
> Same issue. Where is your burden of proof mathematically represented?

Yup. My prediction was correct. You fail to state what part of my
representation is not accurate. It is accurate. 100% Well, let's test
it...


Do you claim:

1) My lack of Proof is equal to or necessarily leads to your doubt?

2) That doubt is equal to a refutation

3) That my lack of proof is *not* equal to (or does not necessarily lead to)
your doubt?

Can you answer those questions? If that is your argument, which it seems to
be, would you claim that *you* have the burden of proof, especially after I
have shown it to be so absurd?

>>>> [3] Words and phrases you have "accidentally" used in different ways or
>>>> completely misused, and the ways you have used them include, but are
>>>> probably not limited to:
>>>>
>>>> * being a criminal AND legally being determined to be a criminal
>>>> * an argument AND a statement
>>>> * an argument AND a proof
>>>> * a judgment AND a adjudication
>>>> * a defendant AND a defender
>>>> * what an argument is AND what an argument is about
>>>> * proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a reasonable doubt
>>>> (as
>>>> in a trial)
>>>> * an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
>>>> * a legal system AND a judicial system
>>>> * an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an argument
>>>> that can only be categorized as a legal argument
>>>> * defense of an argument AND an argument
>>>> * evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
>>>> * Snit AND Josh (AND Sigmond)
>>>> * an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
>>>> * a lack of proof AND a disproof
>>>> * evidence AND proof
>>>> * an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a judicial
>>>> system
>>>> * guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
>>>> * order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an argument
>>
>> I have been asking for definitions of these things you keep confusing for a
>> long time. You have not done so. You will never define these terms - to do
>> so would show how much you have been playing word games. Plain and simple.
>> Again, I could make the same type bet as above; and I would just as surely
>> win.
>
> Your above list of projected lumpits are irrelevant... which is why you
> are attempting to use them...

If defining and differentiating them would hurt my case, then why would I
want *you* to define and differentiate them?

Again. I would have won another bet.

>> You have stated both that your word means nothing and that you are trying to
>> "trick" me. You are not trying to use honesty or show integrity, as I am.
>> Why should I, or anyone really, trust anything you ever say?
>
> How COULD I trick you if you didn't give me the ammo in the form of
> making mistakes presenting your argument?

Right - that is why you failed to trick me.

> I'll snip... it's still sits on google for retrieval

Sounds good.

Snit wrote:
> In the below it becomes clear that you believe:
>
> 1) You do not need to reference an argument to refute it.
> 2) You do not even need to know an argument to refute it.
>
> After close to 150 references or quoting of my argument, you *still*
> admit to not even knowing what my argument is.
>
> Just what is it you think you have refuted? If you have refuted some
> other argument other than the one begins with "Based on the US
> Constitution" (and can be found at:
> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_...defenders/#Case) then not
> even you claim to be refuting my argument.
>
> Do you or do you not claim to have refuted that argument?
>
> Oh, and in both the hypothetical bets that I mentioned, I would have
> won. No doubt.
>
> Recently Elizabot claimed you and she were the same person; I doubt
> it, you are clearly not in her league. Why she was following you
> around like a lost puppy I have no idea.
>
>
> "Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote on 1/9/04 10:42 AM:
>
>> In article <BC236757.39AFB%snit@nospam-cableone.net>,
>> Snit <snit@nospam-cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, again you completely fail to mention my argument in your
>>> attempt at a refutation. Very little in your long list of repeated
>>> mistakes interesting, but a couple points do jump out. Nothing
>>> comes close to an attempt at a refutation, but the following amused
>>> me.
>>
>> Sigh... as I've already said many, many times now... I have no need.
>
> Let me make sure I understand this, you believe you have no need to
> even mention my argument in an attempt to refute it.
>
>>>> I don't have to mention why Bush has not broken the law, YOU have
>>>> to mention
>>>> why he has... in fact, you must do MORE than merely mention it,
>>>> you must PROVE
>>>> it beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>> OK. Here is my evidence that proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>> http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/mac_...defenders/#Case
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!!! Totally unacceptable (but down below, I'll even address
>> the use of this evidence for this purpose... just to be sporting).
>> Your website can change from day to day and probably has every
>> damned day.
>
> Let's seem I have at least 80 posts where I have stated or quoted the
> argument, and most of those times were when I was directly talking
> with you:
>
>
http://www.google.com/groups?num=10...F-8&newwindow=1
>
&safe=off&scoring=d&q=+%22Based+on+the+US+Constitution%22+author%3ASni t&btnG
> =Google+Search
>
> You even have at least 19 posts where it is quoted:
>
>
http://www.google.com/groups?q=+%22...%22+autho r:St
>
eve+author:Carroll&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&
> scoring=d&filter=0
>
> Now, granted, some of those are surely in quotes from previous
> articles, but you have about 100 examples from the two of us... if
> you combine other people it is closer to 150 times that quotes from
> my argument have been posted:
>
>
http://www.google.com/groups?q=+%22...on%22+Snit&num=
> 100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&newwindow=1&safe=off&scoring=d&filter=0
>
> How many times do you need it referenced? Will 150 do? We are
> getting close. Do you need 200 times? 500?
>
>>> Care to actually comment on my argument? Please note that my
>>> support has not changed at all since the start of this silliness.
>>> It still is there. It still is unrefuted, and, in your case, hardly
>>> if at all mentioned.
>>
>> Flip flop...let's get it straight, is it merely 'support' that your
>> claim he is legally guilty MAY be true... OR is it 'evidence' that
>> your claim he is legally guilty IS true.
>
> See if this helps you (definitions from Google)
>
> Support:
> "Establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts..."
>
> "Support with evidence or authority or make more certain or confirm
> ..."
>
> Hmmm, those definitions of "support" use the word "evidence".
>
>
>
> Evidence:
> "Information in the form of personal testimony, documents or objects
> filed in support of the issue in question."
>
> "That which tends to support something or show that something is the
> case."
>
> And those definitions of "evidence" use the word "support"
>
>
>
> Unless you are being very nit picky, AND playing semantic games (gee,
> you would never do that!), seems they are darn near the same. You
> still are ignoring my argument that has been referenced almost 150
> times *without changing* while claiming to refute it.
>
>>>>>>>>> Lack of proof = Doubt
>>>>>>>>> Doubt = Valid Refutation
>>>>>>>>> Lack of proof <> Valid Refutation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we say "Lack of proof" = A, and "Doubt" = B, and "Valid
>>>>>>>>> Refutation" =
>>>>>>>>> C, your argument looks like:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A = B
>>>>>>>>> B = C
>>>>>>>>> A <> C
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Spin, Snit SPIN!!!
>>>
>>> So here you claim that I am spinning the idea that your argument is
>>> an attempt to disprove a mathematical proof. You called it spin,
>>> but when I asked about which step was spin, you failed to state
>>> where I am wrong. Twice now I have asked you about this, and twice
>>> you have gone onto side issues. If my claim is spin, certainly you
>>> can tell me where it is wrong. Can you now, or will you just jump
>>> to another issue again?
>>
>> Same issue. Where is your burden of proof mathematically represented?
>
> Yup. My prediction was correct. You fail to state what part of my
> representation is not accurate. It is accurate. 100% Well, let's
> test it...
>
>
> Do you claim:
>
> 1) My lack of Proof is equal to or necessarily leads to your doubt?
>
> 2) That doubt is equal to a refutation
>
> 3) That my lack of proof is *not* equal to (or does not necessarily
> lead to) your doubt?
>
> Can you answer those questions? If that is your argument, which it
> seems to be, would you claim that *you* have the burden of proof,
> especially after I have shown it to be so absurd?
>
>>>>> [3] Words and phrases you have "accidentally" used in different
>>>>> ways or completely misused, and the ways you have used them
>>>>> include, but are probably not limited to:
>>>>>
>>>>> * being a criminal AND legally being determined to be a criminal
>>>>> * an argument AND a statement
>>>>> * an argument AND a proof
>>>>> * a judgment AND a adjudication
>>>>> * a defendant AND a defender
>>>>> * what an argument is AND what an argument is about
>>>>> * proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a
>>>>> reasonable doubt (as
>>>>> in a trial)
>>>>> * an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
>>>>> * a legal system AND a judicial system
>>>>> * an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument AND an
>>>>> argument that can only be categorized as a legal argument
>>>>> * defense of an argument AND an argument
>>>>> * evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
>>>>> * Snit AND Josh (AND Sigmond)
>>>>> * an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
>>>>> * a lack of proof AND a disproof
>>>>> * evidence AND proof
>>>>> * an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based on a
>>>>> judicial system
>>>>> * guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
>>>>> * order of presentation of an argument AND logical order of an
>>>>> argument
>>>
>>> I have been asking for definitions of these things you keep
>>> confusing for a long time. You have not done so. You will never
>>> define these terms - to do so would show how much you have been
>>> playing word games. Plain and simple. Again, I could make the same
>>> type bet as above; and I would just as surely win.
>>
>> Your above list of projected lumpits are irrelevant... which is why
>> you are attempting to use them...
>
> If defining and differentiating them would hurt my case, then why
> would I want *you* to define and differentiate them?
>
> Again. I would have won another bet.
>
>>> You have stated both that your word means nothing and that you are
>>> trying to "trick" me. You are not trying to use honesty or show
>>> integrity, as I am. Why should I, or anyone really, trust anything
>>> you ever say?
>>
>> How COULD I trick you if you didn't give me the ammo in the form of
>> making mistakes presenting your argument?
>
> Right - that is why you failed to trick me.
>
>> I'll snip... it's still sits on google for retrieval
>
> Sounds good.


Looks like Snit has met Steve Carroll who along with Alan Baker believes in
the round and round method of argument doing and saying anything over 100
times to try and secure "a win".