[MiNe 109]

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:07:01 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:45 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

in your hacking of my message you also
removed where I explicitly said "Of course, none of that is 'proof'."

Why mention it at all?

Because it is 'evidence'.

I hate to burst your bubble but 'evidence' is not automatically a
'proof'.

Are you arguing with yourself?

You asked so I answered.

What part of "'evidence' is not automatically a 'proof'" did you not
understand?

The part where it has anything to do with what I was saying.

Stephen