GD> GD> GD>The proper way is for the positive claimant to provide
GD> GD> GD>evidence to  support their position.  
GD> 
GD> GD> JB> Except that in either case when you are dealing with
GD> GD> JB> absolutes, then it  only takes one instances for the
GD> GD> JB> tautology to be proven false.  I'll  leave you to ponder the
GD> GD> JB> significance of this. 

GD> GD>Ther is absolutely no need to provide evidence that something
GD>exists.  
GD> GD>It's up to you to provide the evidence and allow me to use the
GD> GD>same method  you used to see if it works.  I explained that in
GD> GD>the part of the post  that you didn't re-quote.  

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

GD>Your logic isn't.  

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

Except that in either case when you are dealing with absolutes, then it  
only takes one instances for the tautology to be proven false. 


Jeff

CMPQwk 1.42-21 9999 
Stop the Democrat party oil embargo ....


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10