[ExI] Doubts and gas chambers
randall at randallsquared.com
Mon Oct 8 14:20:14 UTC 2007
On Oct 8, 2007, at 8:55 AM, BillK wrote:
> On 10/8/07, Randall Randall wrote:
>> I think you misunderstand that phrase. As usually
>> used, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means *less* than
>> a reasonable doubt, not more than.
> No. I think you've got that wrong.
Actually, I have that quite right (if there is any
reasonable doubt, then there's no going to jail...).
However, on rereading, it's not clear to me that
that was what was meant.
> "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that you're going to jail.
> See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof>
Right, but the official story is what's "on trial" in
the email that Clark quoted. After rereading it, it
seems to me that it's not clear whether he meant, as I
thought, that the official story was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt, or meant, as you and Clark seem to
be saying he meant, that the official story was
*disproven* beyond a reasonable doubt.
These are very different assertions, but I see upon
further reflection how you could believe he meant the
latter. We need a clarification. :)
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
"[K]nock the whole copyright system down!
Pitchforks and Torches available to my right!" -- johnnyeponymous
More information about the extropy-chat