[cyncooper]

Oh, brother!

Don't compare my comments to the OJ Trial, my FRiend.

I have loads of commonsense.

I didn't say the audience response was *proof*, did I? I said it was *evidence*, which you said there was none of.

The behavior-letters-behavior sequence can lend itself to a certain interpretation, which I tend to think is the case, and it is by definition *evidence*.

I hope you can understand the difference between pointing out "evidence" and "proof", since you compared it to Couric "holiday shopping", something we have no way of knowing Couric engages in, unless she said so, which you did not offer, so my point is your offering the two scenarios as possible explanations for her change in attitude was not a logical comparison.

Good Lord.

[Taliesan]

The behavior-letters-behavior sequence can lend itself to a certain interpretation, which I tend to think is the case, and it is by definition *evidence*.

Exactly. This is precisely your logical error, and this error is in every list of logical fallacies going back at least to Aristotle.

The sequence is a sequence. It is evidence of NOTHING. PRECISELY NOTHING.

Do you honestly not understand this? This is not all a joke?