From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Organization: is for people who don't have real work to do
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:19:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 07:19:16 PDT
Vince Brannigan wrote:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:> Vince Brannigan wrote:
:> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
:> :> Vince Brannigan wrote:
:> :> :it is a difficult concept to grasp , but no, crimes in the legal sense do
:> :> :not exist until someone is convicted. for example
:> :> No, it is not a difficult concept to grasp at all. What you appear to
:> :> consistently miss is that this is not a court and we're not existing
:> :> 'in the legal sense'.
:> :> This is the real world. Deal with it.
:> :This is why I used Bolts versionof Moes words
:> :"the world construes in accordance with its Wits and the Court constures in
:> :accordance with the law"
:> And this would seem to define the difference between us. I have
:> "Wits" and words have meanings. You have nothing until a court tells
:> you what to think and meanings flow like water to be whatever you may
:> choose at any given time.
:I think you have fairly displayed for all the world what you have and don't
I merely took you at your own words, as quoted by you.
:> :If you make a legal claim, Ill call you on it.
:> I made a claim of fact. You insist it isn't fact unless a court
:> validates it for you. This would seem to be YOUR problem.
:Guilt is not a "fact" outside of the legal system. Presidential pardons erase
:guilt, not facts. ergo guilt is not a fact. .
No, pardons erase a FINDING of guilt. The person still did it. Ergo,
they are still guilty. They have just been pardoned.
:> :if not, i dont care what you think on the issue.
:> Well, on this we can agree. Given how you appear to be thinking (or
:> not thinking), I can't imagine caring what you think on the issue (for
:> any given issue), either.
:I am amazed by your claim that words have meanings that re independent of
:context, that guilt is a fact separate from the legal system because you claim
:to be some kind of "scientist"
No, I claim to be an engineer.
:Scientific facts, like legal facts exist in a
:negotiated set of agreements among practitioners.
No. Scientific facts exist for all to see.
:In a popperian universe
:falsification, not verification is the method of advancing science. e.g. a true
:scientist does not know whetehr a theory is true, but only can reject what has
:been shown to be false. Similary we teach that all data is developed in a
:context and may have no reality outside of that context.
Theories are not facts. Data are facts (assuming an honest
measurement). The facts behind the data are facts, no matter whether
they are honestly measured or not.
"Nekubi o kaite was ikenai"
["It does not do to slit the throat of a sleeping man."]
-- Admiral Yamamoto