The truce "ended" by YOU when you started trashing me and my board over on the Blue Board, and you did that because you couldn't hold your own against some of the posters on my board, and so you became pissed at me because I wouldn't make them be nice to you. You don't seem to understand that you are responsible for your own interactions with people, and I am not a net nanny for you or anyone else. You seem to think that you can tell everyone else how to run their boards, yet you have been a miserable failure when it comes to starting and running your own board.

So, when I saw your post about "existential negatives" (copied below), I thought I would just call your bluff to see if you really know what you are talking about.

~*~*~*~

http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=175790;article=1480813;title=Religion%20and%20Ethics%20BBS

Poppet
In terms of the broader conversation, I agree.
Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:35am
96.25.73.12

In individual instances, it's the person claiming knowledge that bears the burden of proof.

In broader conversations about existential points (that is, whether or not a thing exists), it's the positive assertion, the claim that the thing does in fact exist, that bears this burden. Existential negatives are very, very difficult (and in some cases impossible) to prove.