On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:17:22 +0000,
wrote:

:In article Z9Wyb.278857$ao4.989051@attbi_s51,
:Juan..E.-Jimenez b*d&5^-@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m wrote:
:Don't forget, we're still waiting for the proof you'll never show, Duckboy!
:
:
:
:
on't forget, we're *still* waiting for the proof that YOU'LL never show -- the
roof that you are *not* a liar and a fraud, yourself, Jimmy, baby.
:
:You have repeatedly claimed that Chuck either:
: A) Wasn't at SNF at all
: B) Was there, but didn't have any vehicle there
: C) Was there with a vehicle, but didn't own it.
:
:You made the claim; the onus is on _you_ to provide proof.
:
:If you don't have proof, you're a fraud.
:
:If you're wrong, you're a liar.
:
:Your ONGOING REFUSAL to address this issue goes to _your_ credibility.
:
:At this point, you *don't* have ANY credibility on this issue, and as a
:result of -that-, your credibility on _anything_else_ is also called into
:question.
:
:And the available evidence says that you're a LIAR AND A FRAUD.
:
:
:Now, *prove*me*wrong*. If you _CAN_.
:
:Show your proof.
:
:If you can't/won't, you *are* _what_you_claim_ Chuck is.
:

"Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud"

Yes? And your point is?

When you state the obvious, a simple fact that everyone accepts as a
basic part of reality, it's not an argument. At most it's the opening
of an argument, the basis on which you intend to build your point.
"The sun comes up in the east" needs to be followed with a
conclusion, like "THERFORE, you should try to live to the east of
where you work, so the sun will be at your back during your drive to
and from work"

I don't think anyone can disagree with your opening statment, it's
where you go with it that's the question.