Google| Subject | Snit digest 132 / 2015-12-13 |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 12/13/2015 19:36 (12/13/2015 19:36) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-9a038626256ea3367f1c7a9d758734ab@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Follows | Snit |
| Followups | Snit (6h & 55m) > Sandman Steve Carroll (12h & 51m) |
In article <D2930239.66EA6%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>, Snit wrote:
SnitIncorrect, it shows exactly that. "Proof" isn't a binary thing. Proof, evidence and substantiation for a claim can be weak or strong, but regardless, it is proof. And proof is only proof until it has been disproven.
[937] <http://usenet.sandman.net/misc/steve> [937] shows NO support that Carroll is not using the two email [937] addresses
My claim is that Steve Carroll does not post with two different email addresses - to support that claim I have documented the fact that one email address always posts from one single ISP while the other uses anonymous proxies. That is indeed strong proof.
Anyone that would want to claim that this is the same person need to provide support for that claim. And account for:
1. If Steve Carroll is using an anonymous proxy to post to usenet, what is the purpose of using his own name?
2. If Steve Carroll is using an anonymous proxy to post to usenet, why would he use an email address that is similar to his own?
Those are two logical thresholds that you need to provide support for, on top of proof that they are from the same person.
So far, you have provided zero proof for your claim, while I have fully supported my claim. Merely denying provided substantiation means absolutely nothing. You need to disprove it.
Sandman: 21 Snit: 0
Snit summary of meaningless phrases (since 2015-12-09): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- troll 21 | lying/lie 46 | incest 1 sex 0 | honorable 1 | honest 4 run 3 | css 5 | tilde 0
-- Sandman
12/10/2015-
-
-
-
