Do you think William Herbert Wallace was guilty?

[RodCrosby]

"not impossible..." ≠ "most likely..."

Statistical Probability is not your strong suit, clearly.

[AmericanSherlock]

"not impossible..." <> "most likely..."

Statistical Probability is not your strong suit, clearly.

He was asking you, who is fixed in your view, a question not stating he thinks it is merely not impossible.

You know this already.

You are drawing false connections as usual.

[RodCrosby]

for example....

It is "not impossible" that you will toss a coin so that it lands head-up six times in succession.

It is (by far), "most likely" that you will not...

Or, another example.

[AmericanSherlock]

It is "not impossible" that you will toss a coin so that it lands head-up six times in succession.

It is (by far), "most likely" that you will not...

for example....

Oh my God...

I GET the implied difference between most likely and not impossible. Do you realize your behavior is so bizarre it comes across to people as you're having a laugh when you're being serious?

I'm saying you are erroneously applying the concept. He never said "I think its not impossible Wallace was guilty"

Show me where he said that.

[RodCrosby]

Reading not your strong suit, either?

"Is it absolutely impossible that Wallace put it in an ash bin anywhere....?"

implying he thought it "not impossible", and W "therefore" GUILTY.

Even God can't help the terminally stupid, btw... so save your prayers.

[AmericanSherlock]

Reading not your strong suit, either?

"Is it absolutely impossible that Wallace put it in an ash bin anywhere....?"

implying he thought it "not impossible", and W "therefore" GUILTY.

Oh my God...

So many unfounded assumptions here.

It's actually worse than I thought.

Herlock was right.

You're clueless.

Lie down.

[AmericanSherlock]

Reading not your strong suit, either?

"Is it absolutely impossible that Wallace put it in an ash bin anywhere....?"

implying he thought it "not impossible", and W "therefore" GUILTY.

Even God can't help the terminally stupid, btw... so save your prayers.

Not very Christian for a "pope watcher"

[Herlock Sholmes]

for example....

It is "not impossible" that you will toss a coin so that it lands head-up six times in succession.

It is (by far), "most likely" that you will not...

Or, another example.

You are beyond intelligent discussion.

It’s not impossible therefore it is possible. That is logic in its purest form. It CANNOT be argued with.

Where did the weapon go? You claim that it was removed by a made-up person. One you can’t name or even prove existed. There is absolutely nothing impossible or even unlikely about Wallace putting the bar into someone’s ash bin. Nothing at all.

Don’t you just hate it when we keep knocking away the toy bricks of your fatuous theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Reading not your strong suit, either?

"Is it absolutely impossible that Wallace put it in an ash bin anywhere....?"

implying he thought it "not impossible", and W "therefore" GUILTY.

Even God can't help the terminally stupid, btw... so save your prayers.

I’m not used trying to think down to this level.

Not impossible

and so...

Possible.

You can’t prove a level of probability for this. All you mean is that it’s impossible because it doesn’t fit your theory.

Not impossible and so it’s possible.

Not impossible and so it’s possible.

Keep saying it and it might stick.

[Herlock Sholmes]

for example....

It is "not impossible" that you will toss a coin so that it lands head-up six times in succession.

It is (by far), "most likely" that you will not...

Or, another example.

A made up graph.......well that proves it then

[AmericanSherlock]

I’m not used trying to think down to this level.

Not impossible

and so...

Possible.

You can’t prove a level of probability for this. All you mean is that it’s impossible because it doesn’t fit your theory.

Not impossible and so it’s possible.

Not impossible and so it’s possible.

Keep saying it and it might stick.

Yes this as well obviously. His inference was wrong on so many levels that one has to actually sit down and try to vivisect his endless logical flaws.

So we have,

1. You never said anything about Wallace's guilt as a whole just enquired as to whether a particular method of weapon disposal was possible

2. You framed it as is it not possible because of how Rod was so laughably dismissive. This says nothing of your personal view on the subject.

3. Not impossible does not designate any particular level of probability.

So Rod was wrong on THREE separate levels.

I didn't think it possible...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes this as well obviously. His inference was wrong on so many levels that one has to actually sit down and try to vivisect his endless logical flaws.

So we have,

1. You never said anything about Wallace's guilt as a whole just enquired as to whether a particular method of weapon disposal was possible

2. You framed it as is it not possible because of how Rod was so laughably dismissive. This says nothing of your personal view on the subject.

3. Not impossible does not designate any particular level of probability.

So Rod was wrong on THREE separate levels.

I didn't think it possible...

Only Rod could manage to be so wrong.

I also can't help noticing the conspicuous absence if a reason WHY the ash can suggestion is so improbable?

Apparently it just is because Rod says so.

[RodCrosby]

The whole point of this digression was to demonstrate that it doesn't have to be impossible [I already conceded it was not "impossible" if you care to read] for it to be vanishingly unlikely that Wallace was guilty.

As demonstrated up-thread, simple concepts like "probability" are a foreign concept for you...

To throw one head is "not impossible", in fact it's "quite likely".

To throw six is "very unlikely". That is not opinion, it's mathematical and logical fact, according to my university tutors in statistics, many moons ago...

And I don't think the Laws of the Universe have changed recently. I'm sure it would have been on the TV.

Meanwhile.. in La-La Land, the "not impossible" raised to some power, becomes "likely"...

Only in La-La Land.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The whole point of this digression was to demonstrate that it doesn't have to be impossible [I already conceded it was not "impossible" if you care to read] for it to be vanishingly unlikely that Wallace was guilty.

As demonstrated up-thread, simple concepts like "probability" are a foreign concept for you...

To throw one head is "not impossible", in fact it's "quite likely".

To throw six is "very unlikely". That is not opinion, it's mathematical and logical fact, according to my university tutors in statistics, many moons ago...

And I don't think the Laws of the Universe have changed recently. I'm sure it would have been on the TV.

Meanwhile.. in La-La Land, the "not impossible" raised to some power, becomes "likely"...

Only in La-La Land.

Why is it unlikely?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is it unlikely?

More likely than you going to university by the way