Evidence to Convict?

[Astonished]

For fuck's sake RR. You go to extreme lengths to get people to agree with you that testimonial evidence is just as good as any other. It's not and never will be. The human mind simply isn't reliable enough.

Case in point: Beep-Beep himself.

Look, ToadBuggerer, you're flat wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's factually objectively the least reliable form of evidence and should, in the absence of any other empirical evidence, be dismissed. Fortunately there's very infrequently no actual evidence to accompany in the situations where it's used (even if those situations only have circumstantial evidence). It just so happens that your book o' bullshit is one of those rare occasions, where not even something as minor as circumstantial evidence can be found to support it. So can you guess why that ancient tabloid trash is dismissed so readily, and justifiably so? Come on, you can make it. It's just a matter of admitting you're wrong. Yes, it's painful, but your life will vastly improve once you're willing to make that leap. That, we can prove. People who abandon faith have gained much, just look at someone like Seth Andrews or Dan Barker.