News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:John Barnett before death "if anything happens, it's not ... by thaumasiotes on Friday March 15, 2024 @06:52AM (#39714139)
withinboredom seems to be making the similar but tangential point that, in the same way that absence of gunpowder is evidence [of something] while presence of gunpowder isn't evidence of anything, it's possible to demonstrate that a death was not by suicide, but it isn't possible to demonstrate that a death was by suicide. Same idea, but reversing "which part of the sentence is the variable".
Re:John Barnett before death "if anything happens, it's not ... by sfn42 on Friday March 15, 2024 @07:38AM (#39714389)
I understand what they're saying, I just don't know why they keep explaining it when its irrelevant to what I'm saying.
Re:John Barnett before death "if anything happens, it's not ... by vasco on Friday March 15, 2024 @08:04AM (#39714611)
If you fire a gun inside a car, both people and the car would be full of gun powder residue, not just the hand that shot - I think.
Re:John Barnett before death "if anything happens, it's not ... by dolmen on Friday March 15, 2024 @11:10AM (#39716629)
... and that should be the same residue.
Re:John Barnett before death "if anything happens, it's not ... by withinboredom on Friday March 15, 2024 @08:43AM (#39714886)
I'm not "keeping explaining." I made a counter-point, and you redirected me to your point; I acknowledged that I got your point and explained I was making a counter-point, and you reiterated your point. I upvoted your final reiteration to ack that the conversation was over.