ML>> PF> Do you expect me to believe in the tooth fairy until he is
  >> PF> proved to not exist? I prefer to assume he doesn't until
  >> PF> someone proves he does.
ML>>hehe, let's take another look at this...
ML>>  do you believe that a party is guilty until proven innocent
  >>  or do you believe they are innocent until proven guilty?
 RT> Neither.
hey, you're not PF... you're RT...
 RT> They are guilty when they commit a crime.  They are innocent
 RT> until they commit a crime.
true... however, my point is in the semantics of what is being stated... i've 
left PF's comments above and mine as well... "only the names have been 
changed to protect the innocent" err... well, hopefully you get the picture 

 RT> This has little to do with proof of existence on non-existence.
 RT> And, nothing to do with whether or not UFOs (or the tooth fairy)
 RT> exist.
right...
 RT> Now, if you will, answer the question... Does the absence of
 RT> evidence proving that the tooth fairy doesn't exist prove
 RT> that he does?
"there's not enough information available to make a complete diagnosis"
ML>>think about it and what you state above...
 RT> Your turn.

)\/(ark
---------------