Burden of proof is on you.

Burden of proof is on you.

BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU MY ANUS

>>2
Go back to /prog/, please!

Burden of proof is on the accuser. :/
That's why scientists desperately attempt to come up with their own solutions to counter with AS PROOF!!!

Suck on a dick, and die in a fire...we are not your fucking personal army!

>>3
Come from /sci/, please

>>5
die in a fire, please

>>6
die in a fire
Back to the nearest emo forum, please

>>7
after you, emo.

>>8
Hi! >>6 , you didn't go to your nearest emo forum, so here you go http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&source=hp&q=%22emo+forum%22&aq=f&aqi=g6g-m3&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=eef0471d6505a069

the burden of proof is on the accusers, not the proclaimers.

It's up to you to find a contradistinction if you feel a contradiction is present.

also, not your personal army.

>>9
lead by example.

:/

Law's burden of proof = "anyone is innocent except this is proved false"

Science's burden of proof = "parsimony breaks only for evidences".

So, in a shitty example: if someone was in the crime scene, touched the weapon, but had no reason to kill the victim, LEGALLY speaking the burden of proof is at his side (he's innocent), but SCIENTIFICALLY he is probably the murder.

>>11
example by lead

/:

>>12
>>13
you are both shitty trolls.
just so you know.

:/

>>14

1) >>12-13
OMG OPTIMIZED

2) So says the "shitty troll" himself.

>>15
speak for yourself, since that is what you do anyway.

:/

>>16
>>15
>>14
Trolls.

>>17
Only trolls bump threads. So >>15 doesn't count.

>>18
but that would mean that >>17 is a troll, which invalidates your statement.

:/

>>19
Trolls that are trolling bump threads to be able to get the most attention possible. I never claimed >>17 a troll, so my statement still stands.

>>20
You implied >>17 is a troll cause >>17 bumped the thread as well.
So either >>17 is a troll or your statement is invalid making you the troll.

lrn2logic

:/

>>21
implied
I did not imply he was either.

>>22
your intention of implication is not necessary for there to be an implication provided. One is always provided in everything you say, it's just a matter of logical deduction, "Only trolls bump threads," How many people on here bump threads? Also, since >>17 is obviously not a troll as you have stated, "I never claimed >>17 a troll," your statement of "Only trolls bump threads is invalid.

Lrn2logic better

:/

>>23
I said in >>20 that, "Trolls that are trolling bump threads to be able to get the most attention possible". Hence, they wouldn't use "sage" because then they don't bump the thread to the top thereby not getting the maximum attention to their post.

I probably should have mentioned that in >>18 but didn't become apparent until you suggested that I said that >>17 himself was a troll, to which I never did. It would be nice if I could delete >>18 and rewrite it, but alas, Shiitchan.

>>24
Here is your statement
>>> >>17
>>> Only trolls bump threads. So >>15 doesn't count.

"Only" denotes that bumping threads are solely troll activity making the person that does so a troll to which the one's that "sage" a thread are not trolls.

When you put, "so" at the beginning of your next statement, you are making a conclusion based on the prior premise that "only trolls bump threads" therefore "...>>15 doesn't count."

Logically;
If "Only trolls bump threads" is true.
Then ">>15 doesn't count" holds true.
As Well as your direction at >>17 implies ">>17 is also a troll for lack of "sage"" as evidenced on this board for all to read.

however you later recanted that >>17 was not a troll.
Therefore, if your statement of "Only trolls bump threads" is true, then, >>17 is a troll through implication due to lack of "sage", and >>15 is not a troll as >>17 previously stated. 

However, if your statement of "Only trolls bump threads" is false, then, >>17 is not a troll through implication due to lack of "sage" and "...>>15...trolls." as >>17 had previously stated remains firm as fact with your statement to back it up.

Which is it?

:/

>>25
Right, I stated that in >>18 but I later recanted in >>20 I said "Trolls that are trolling bump threads to be able to get the most attention possible." Since you were suggesting that I was suggesting that >>17 was a troll himself, to which I really wasn't. And then in >>24 I stated "I probably should have mentioned that in >>18 but didn't become apparent until you suggested that I said that >>17 himself was a troll, to which I never did. It would be nice if I could delete >>18  and rewrite it, but alas, Shiitchan."

Damn, this is starting to become a maze.

>>26
Also, so basically, I hereby revoke >>18 as a post, and to follow the logic in >>20 henceforth (being that I cannot delete my own posts here).

>>27
jesus...took you long enough...and it's not suggesting when implication is a fact of logic, which doesn't mean it doesn't exist just because you're unaware of what you say. You should brush up on your critical thinking skills, good sir. They make life much more interesting for us when we see the not-so-obvious differences all around us.

And let that be a lesson to you...no one person is better than another, it's merely an illusion to blind you from what is right in front of you; a means to learn.

:/