Kerry looks like a weak turd! 2676

Of course my response was relevant. Do you think, in an atmosphere whereby the accuser admits he has NO proof, that someone is guilty merely because the alleged guilty is not legal guilt? Are you even coherent enough to realize that is your implication here? I suggested you get one of your many mental health care professionals that, you claim, have all given you a clean bill of mental health to read the following to you and explain it:

From my previous post:

"Why would you think you have proven *any* kind of guilt when even you admitted you had no proof? You presented your evidence, flatly stated it contained no proof, I agreed. Let it go, Snit... let it go;)

******************************************************************* The following is what Snit wrote about the evidence he presented on his 'Bush is guilty of breaking the law' argument:

"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."

As anyone that can comprehend what they read can plainly see, Snit is clearly stating that his evidence "does not offer proof". As is **NO** proof! Snit even defines proof... and he did so while simultaneously stating that his evidence offers strong support. If his evidence doesn't prove *one single thing* is true so as to have something else 'necessarily follow from it', how can it offer *any* kind of support?"

-- "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls like myself" - Snit