[ExI] Doubts and gas chambers

[Stefano Vaj]

To put it very simply: a reasonable doubt is sufficient to consider
that one did not make one's case. If the doubt is more than
reasonable, i.e., it is not only reasonable but plausible or even
compelling, this is of course also true.

If any possible doubt is less than reasonable, it does not count,
because the case has been proved beyond the threshold of "reasonable".

Accordingly, if the official version for 9/11 bears the burden of
proof, the existence of one or more reasonable doubts, even
inconsistent amongst them, makes it unproved.

On 10/8/07, Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2007, at 1:46 AM, John K Clark wrote:
> > Richard Loosemore <rpwl at lightlink.com>
> >> to think that a more than reasonable doubt exists.
> >
> > More than a reasonable doubt? So you think the evidence is good
> > enough right
> > now to put American citizens in gas chambers for this phantom
> > conspiracy.
>
> I think you misunderstand that phrase.  As usually
> used, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means *less* than
> a reasonable doubt, not more than.
>
> --
> Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
> "If I can do it in Alabama, then I'm fairly certain you
>   can get away with it anywhere." -- Dresden Codak
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>