But you can attempt disprove a proof that is purported to have happened. If indeed the proof is true, you will find your attempt to be futile. If it is in error, you will be able to disprove that purported proof.
I have already alleged to you my proof and stand behind it in confidence that it is true. I have stated it and directed it to you many times. Not once have you addressed it. Instead you only deny its existence all together, citing no rational reason for doing so, only your own authority.
And you can't prove it happened.
To the contrary. I already have. You on the other hand cannot prove my purported inability to prove it, though you have alleged to many times.
You deduced something and presented it as hard cold fact.
Indeed I did, and doing so is a perfectly valid argument. Facts may be established by proper deduction, Walt. Live with it.
You could have said, "here is almost certainly what happened", but you didn't.
Why should I settle for that when I can establish by logical reasoning with certitude that it definately did happen? Simply put, the established fact that Lincoln approached Corwin with the Seward text and convinced Corwin to substitute the Seward text necessitates, in order for such an event to even take place, that Lincoln first know what the Seward text was. Since the Seward text is the same as the amendment, Lincoln therefore knew the amendment.
Again, my invitation remains. Please rebut my argument and its factual conclusion as found above in the bold section. As a hint, to do so necessitates that you demonstrate either that Corwin and Lincoln did not meet (which they did), the amendment was not substituted as a result of that meeting (it was), or that Lincoln could have engaged in that meeting and presented to Corwin an amendment that was unknown to him (which he could not have done for he could not have presented the amendment without first knowing that amendment to posess being). So have at it, Walt!
You jumped in and took a plunge that you cannot now support.
Again, please substantiate that allegation. Otherwise, I may again reject it in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. It's as simple as that.
Alleged. That is an interesting choice of word.
Earlier, you said your proof was deduced. Unfortunately for you, the dictionary definition indicates that a deduction cannont be proven to absolute certainty, which is what I have been saying.
Are you now saying that your "deduction" was wrong all along?
Don't like that word any more?
Watl