You called your conclusion a deduction. A deduction by definition cannot prove absolute truth. You stated something as absolute truth that was only circumstantial --something you deduced. When push came to shove, you lied. Now you are upset because you got caught.
Walt
Nonsense. You are arguing semantics that you yourself have not even established to be true.
But since you insist upon taking the argument down this route, I guess I'll just have to beat you there like I did when you took us down the route of appealing to authority. Since you appear to want a semantics war, consider yourself to have gotten one.
de·duc·tion Pronunciation Key (d-dkshn) n.
4. Logic.
a. The process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises
American Heritage Dictionary 2000 edition
See that walt? FOLLOWS NECESSARILY from the stated premises. To follow necessarily means to follow with certitude. Live with it.
You stated something as absolute truth that was only circumstantial --something you deduced.
To the contrary. I established by causality that truth in my assertion was logically inescapable. You have yet to even address my proof much less attempt to rebut it. Therefore it stands.
When push came to shove, you lied.
Since you fail to substantiate your above assertion, I may reject it in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Now you are upset because you got caught.
Caught at what, Walt? You certainly haven't established that much. So again, I may reject it in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.