What would you consider proof? This is not an idle question. Let's ask Marek
how such a thing would work. When is evidence enough in a murder case, even
when proof cannot be had? Would you be willing to spend your time to read and
see what I tell you to see and read? Obviously, I cannot do this work for you.
The thing about proving, demonstrating, following etc. an argument, is that you
would have to be willing to actually do something, rather than just sit
passively and let me recount all the videos I've seen, books I've read,
websites I've reviewed etc. If you're gonna be the jury, you'd have work
because in order to know something, we must actually do something. Knowledge
is a participatory thing in a case such as this.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated
12/5/07 3:25:31 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If it would, then the question is serious enough to consider seriously
rather than to dismiss on the grounds that so far all we have is
evidence---not proof.
Proof cannot be found until we are willing to consider the evidence, not
just a particular piece of it, but the body of it and its weight. In this
case, the history, hidden or otherwise, leading up to the event is
necessarily part of the evidence.
Well, get you ducks in a row and prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt
and we'll see if anybody is willing to listen.
---------------------------------
Check out AOL Money Finance's list of the hottest products and top money
wasters of 2007.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
