-> On 22 Apr 09  02:15:00, Jeff Binkley got back to God Dan 
-> Re: NET MAIL

 GD> GD>The proper way is for the positive claimant to provide evidence
 GD> GD>to  support their position.  
 
 GD> JB> Except that in either case when you are dealing with absolutes,
 GD> JB> then it  only takes one instances for the tautology to be proven
 GD> JB> false.  I'll  leave you to ponder the significance of this.
 
 GD>Ther is absolutely no need to provide evidence that something exists.
 
 GD>It's up to you to provide the evidence and allow me to use the same
 GD>method  you used to see if it works.  I explained that in the part of
 GD>the post  that you didn't re-quote.  

 JB> Your response leaves me to believe that you have no idea of the
 JB> logical  significance of my response.  I am fine with that.

Your logic isn't.  

You need to provide testable facts, not unevidenced beliefs.  After 
all, you have yet to demonstrate that I don't have a promissory 
note from you in my safe.  


... I think that I shall never see, a fundy smarter than a tree...
--- OMX/Blue Wave/DOS v2.30