Read a rumor that DTrace will be in OS X Leopard. 3218

Guilty in a moral sense, of course... as you're obviously not talking about legal guilt.

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

Here is where your 'new' guilt argument sprang from... an old argument you made about Bush... of which I

"Your argument butterted 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)."

You replied:

"Yes. Very good." I came back with:

"You have just admitted that your evidence does not prove this buttertion." Your reply:

"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."

There you are, admitting you had absolutely NO proof for your argument that stated: "Bush is guilty of breaking the law", yet, you continued to claim your argument was 'strongly supported'. It's funny that you once asked me:

"You really do not understand the meaning of the word "proof", do you?"

Thankfully, you explained what 'the meaning of the word "proof"' meant to *you* when you admitted your evidence offered NONE. You flatly admitting that you had NO statements in your evidence that showed even one thing was true... thereby enabling something else to necessarily follow from it. I agreed when you first wrote this and I still agree.

On the same argument you also

"A trial would have a definite ending, a verdict. A logical argument does not. It is a statement of premises and logical steps. Given A and B and C, and following the logical steps of D and E and F, we logically conclude with G. G is not a verdict, it is a logical conclusion."

Your argument obviously has a "logic" problem;)

Here are some other tidbits by you...

"It is a legal, moral, and logical argument."

"I provide the evidence in my argument (as seen on my web site) to support the conclusion of my argument (that Bush is guilty)."

"While we have, in the past, focused on the ethics argument, for now I believe we are focused on the logical argument."

"The *conclusion* is that he is a war criminal (or, really, that he has broken international and US laws that deal with using force)."

"Right: I can not unequivocally state that Bush is a war criminal."

"He has lied about the war on Iraq. An illegal war. One that makes him a war criminal."

"Ok... Morally he is a war criminal. Legally, it has not been decided."

"Yes, I *may* have made a comment to Steve that could reasonably have been read as my saying Bush was legally guilty of something." - Snit

"My argument has always been the same thing. ÊThe evidence in my argument is seen on my web site and it supports the conclusion of my argument (that Bush is guilty). ÊNothing has changed about the argument."

"Let's look at the facts: even if for some reason you disagree with the 300 plus legal experts who see this was as being illegal, don't you think that would have a mention in the mainstream news?"

-- Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD - Snit Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls like myself - Snit I am a bigger liar than Steve - Snit