[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

你呢度偷換咗決定權同舉證責任，你無權決定唔代表你無舉證責任

其實你柒咗咪直接認囉
我安排你見人，仲唔係盡咗舉證責任?
不過你自己放棄，係與人無尤

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'?所以你安排我去見人, 並唔係盡咗舉證責任. 因為你唔係需要向我證明, 而係你需要證明.
唔好用"你需要向我證明"偷換"你需要證明".

根本你自己放棄，仲要話人五毛
我由頭到尾係冇義務向你證明任何嘢：
1，以你的地位，根本冇需要再作證明
2，這是國體，我個人冇權力去代表一個國家去證明
其實，你柒完未？

根本就唔係我放唔放棄, 唔好又諗住轉移視線去我身上
同我咩地位根本無關.
我無話你"係"5毛, 我係話因為你不斷用五毛式詭辯, 我有合理懷疑你可以係CCP spy.
我講多次: 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變

係你自己放棄證實的機會，已經非常淸楚。
我已經講咗N次，以你的地位，我冇義務去prove一個國家的政策
就算你不存在，呢個決定亦需由國家系統親自證實。
he who assert must prove,he就係英國政府，你歸英，問准佢根本非常合理，理所當然
你仲想柒幾耐先滿足?

根本就唔係我放唔放棄, 唔好又諗住轉移視線去我身上
同我咩地位根本無關. 你已不斷用"有無需要向我證明", 去偷換"你有無需要證明"
句statement "英國一定唔會收返", 係由你講出嚟. 就算原來source from 邊個都好.
因為句statement 係你講, 你就有責任提出理據.
唔好轉移視線落我嘅主張度.
我講多次: 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變, 個"he", 係講出句statement 嘅你. 唔係其他人.

我一早已引用FAC MEETING紀錄，已經有理據
你自己唔信，我非常包容，俾機會你去親自證實
你所講的根本已經做齊
你自己唔信，唔代表人地仲有責任去prove,加上你自己放棄機會，更加與人無尤
你想柒落去，我絕對可以成全你
五毛果D小兒科，我當R痕

link 都無條叫做你有引用? 再死撐啲添啦笨
你又再次用"有無需要向我證明", 去偷換"你有無需要證明"
十幾頁連link 都無條叫有prove

I don't ing care 你對我嘅人身攻擊，我同樣地唔會在意所謂柒定唔柒
我只係在意statement 合唔合邏輯，burden of proof 喺邊個度, that't it

又扮弱者，又話人身攻擊
一，教埋你Google用乜keyword去search你仲係成件弱智咁，淨係識不停問人攞link，好似食飯要人喂到入囗先叫食飯咁。
二，我認為根本非常合理，係你自己一味要link,呢度我當吹水,我唔係做功課要quote乜quote物,你唔夠智慧連少少internet searching skills都冇，閣下自裡
三，仲講有沒有需要證明，已經on99
四，咁怕人地攻擊你,你快點匿埋啦,地球好危險的

你要人哋去seach已經係違反你burden of proof
你又再次偷換"有無需要向我證明", 去偷換"你有無需要證明"

我根本無需要去做任何嘢，因為係你有舉證責任，而唔係我

Burden of proof係你自己單方面的opinion,我不需要亦冇義務去跟隨你的規則。呢度只係吹水，覺得不滿意大可唔講,亦冇人迫你講。
你話偷換，who ing cares?十多頁一味扮弱者，一味話偷換，仲有冇D新意？
我講完,你想反舉證,係你自由。誠意已經俾哂，冇一樣證據比你親自聽到更有說服力，只係常識，根本不需任何理論。你話五毛，又信唔過，乜柒物柒,呢D我唔包,只係你自己問題

burden of proof 唔係我單方面嘅opinion, 點嚟我已經有引文post 埋喺本post 度.
呢個係Philosophic burden of proof嘅原則嚟. 簡單講, 係邏輯思維嘅一部份嚟.
你唔係"跟隨我的規則", 而係講正經嘢, 就有需要合邏輯.
你當然可以唔care 你有無偷換概念, 因為你可以完全唔care 你所講嘅statement 係咪valid statement. 不過我重複, 唔合邏輯嘅statement , 就係invalid .
當然如果你承認你話"英國一定唔會收返"只係吹水而無實據, 咁我就無需要再問落去.

英國一定唔會收返係事實
我offer你見parliament的人就係proof
係你自己本身有問題，與人冇尤。其實你應該一早停止問落去，而唔係而家

訴諸斷言（appeal to assertion）或（重複）斷言證明（proof by (repeated) assertion），是不斷聲稱自己的觀點無誤而不提供任何理據的做為。
你so called 話叫我去見parliament的人唔係proof. 因為唔係你拎出prove, 你只係叫人自己去prove. 咁已經違反burden of proof 啦

唔通你想parliament打俾你?定揾個代表親自見你,大爺?
你根本連respectation都冇,冇大冇細，基本禮貌都冇,仲柒乜？

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

對香港人嚟講，心魔應該係蛀港部隊。
所以，港獨派要做的話，策略上照計係針對蛀港部隊。

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

一個負責任嘅人，尤其是搞政治，點可以對自己所講唔負責？
你自己思覺失條就收皮啦，叫你拎proof就幻想人哋想打倒你
咁基本嘅質問都經唔起，仲學人搞政治

對你呢種柒頭,on on 99,政治智慧得O，你點會明乜嘢叫負責?
上面的字句已經好明顯叫人唔好信HKIP,又話五毛，又話引你出洞。其實你只係柒頭皮，賣HKIP黨旗，你有乜價值要我值得買起你?
你可以繼續講，offer俾咗你，你唔要，當然係你權利，不過你尻縮就無謂多多藉口

你不斷玩邏輯謬誤去詭辯，叫人唔好信你好合理
你又用訴諸人身謬誤去轉移視線
講多一次，無論我係白痴廢柴定係隻狗，甚至我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
你要人哋take任何action,已經係推卸緊你嘅burden of proof

國家大事，涉及國體，容我決定?
你係咪發夢歸英恨到發燒燒壞腦?

你呢度偷換咗決定權同舉證責任，你無權決定唔代表你無舉證責任

其實你柒咗咪直接認囉
我安排你見人，仲唔係盡咗舉證責任?
不過你自己放棄，係與人無尤

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'?所以你安排我去見人, 並唔係盡咗舉證責任. 因為你唔係需要向我證明, 而係你需要證明.
唔好用"你需要向我證明"偷換"你需要證明".

根本你自己放棄，仲要話人五毛
我由頭到尾係冇義務向你證明任何嘢：
1，以你的地位，根本冇需要再作證明
2，這是國體，我個人冇權力去代表一個國家去證明
其實，你柒完未？

根本就唔係我放唔放棄, 唔好又諗住轉移視線去我身上
同我咩地位根本無關.
我無話你"係"5毛, 我係話因為你不斷用五毛式詭辯, 我有合理懷疑你可以係CCP spy.
我講多次: 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變

係你自己放棄證實的機會，已經非常淸楚。
我已經講咗N次，以你的地位，我冇義務去prove一個國家的政策
就算你不存在，呢個決定亦需由國家系統親自證實。
he who assert must prove,he就係英國政府，你歸英，問准佢根本非常合理，理所當然
你仲想柒幾耐先滿足?

根本就唔係我放唔放棄, 唔好又諗住轉移視線去我身上
同我咩地位根本無關. 你已不斷用"有無需要向我證明", 去偷換"你有無需要證明"
句statement "英國一定唔會收返", 係由你講出嚟. 就算原來source from 邊個都好.
因為句statement 係你講, 你就有責任提出理據.
唔好轉移視線落我嘅主張度.
我講多次: 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變, 個"he", 係講出句statement 嘅你. 唔係其他人.

我一早已引用FAC MEETING紀錄，已經有理據
你自己唔信，我非常包容，俾機會你去親自證實
你所講的根本已經做齊
你自己唔信，唔代表人地仲有責任去prove,加上你自己放棄機會，更加與人無尤
你想柒落去，我絕對可以成全你
五毛果D小兒科，我當R痕

link 都無條叫做你有引用? 再死撐啲添啦笨
你又再次用"有無需要向我證明", 去偷換"你有無需要證明"
十幾頁連link 都無條叫有prove

I don't ing care 你對我嘅人身攻擊，我同樣地唔會在意所謂柒定唔柒
我只係在意statement 合唔合邏輯，burden of proof 喺邊個度, that't it

又扮弱者，又話人身攻擊
一，教埋你Google用乜keyword去search你仲係成件弱智咁，淨係識不停問人攞link，好似食飯要人喂到入囗先叫食飯咁。
二，我認為根本非常合理，係你自己一味要link,呢度我當吹水,我唔係做功課要quote乜quote物,你唔夠智慧連少少internet searching skills都冇，閣下自裡
三，仲講有沒有需要證明，已經on99
四，咁怕人地攻擊你,你快點匿埋啦,地球好危險的

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'
唔好又用人身攻擊去逃避你嘅burden of proof

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'
唔好又用人身攻擊去逃避你嘅burden of proof

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'
唔好又用人身攻擊去逃避你嘅burden of proof

明白，既然你不承認你存在此世界上
咁可以case closed

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'
唔好又用人身攻擊去逃避你嘅burden of proof

明白，既然你不承認你存在此世界上
咁可以case closed

又打稻草人, 我只係指出人無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof. 所以如果你係要我去做啲乜的話, 你已經你推卸緊burden of proof

對香港人嚟講，心魔應該係蛀港部隊。
所以，港獨派要做的話，策略上照計係針對蛀港部隊。

對香港人嚟講，心魔應該係蛀港部隊。
所以，港獨派要做的話，策略上照計係針對蛀港部隊。

講真，獨唔獨到由始至終都係凸區自己內部"人"既問題。
而"人"既問題中都要分左level先。
最先要解決既先後次序，真係大支那膠第一、共奴第二，之後先去到蛀港蝗軍。

對香港人嚟講，心魔應該係蛀港部隊。
所以，港獨派要做的話，策略上照計係針對蛀港部隊。

講真，獨唔獨到由始至終都係凸區自己內部"人"既問題。
而"人"既問題中都要分左level先。
最先要解決既先後次序，真係大支那膠第一、共奴第二，之後先去到蛀港蝗軍。

第一個:自宮痔瘡膏發言人

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'
唔好又用人身攻擊去逃避你嘅burden of proof

明白，既然你不承認你存在此世界上
咁可以case closed

又打稻草人, 我只係指出人無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof. 所以如果你係要我去做啲乜的話, 你已經你推卸緊burden of proof

又扮弱者
你的burden of proof係你自己proof
講到囗臭
留定位俾你
你行入Westminster 自然有proof
冇文件,冇網址
人方面我會安排
你有你規矩，我有我規則
唔敢嚟，要尻縮，就收皮

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'
唔好又用人身攻擊去逃避你嘅burden of proof

明白，既然你不承認你存在此世界上
咁可以case closed

又打稻草人, 我只係指出人無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof. 所以如果你係要我去做啲乜的話, 你已經你推卸緊burden of proof

又扮弱者
你的burden of proof係你自己proof
講到囗臭
留定位俾你
你行入Westminster 自然有proof
冇文件,冇網址
人方面我會安排
你有你規矩，我有我規則
唔敢嚟，要尻縮，就收皮

又打稻草人, "扮弱者"係你用訴諸斷言
he who assert must prove, 所以burden of proof 在你而不在其他人. 你而家只係不斷推卸
你要我行去邊, 要我做任何嘢, 你已經違反咗"he who assert must prove"原則

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'
唔好又用人身攻擊去逃避你嘅burden of proof

明白，既然你不承認你存在此世界上
咁可以case closed

又打稻草人, 我只係指出人無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof. 所以如果你係要我去做啲乜的話, 你已經你推卸緊burden of proof

又扮弱者
你的burden of proof係你自己proof
講到囗臭
留定位俾你
你行入Westminster 自然有proof
冇文件,冇網址
人方面我會安排
你有你規矩，我有我規則
唔敢嚟，要尻縮，就收皮

又打稻草人, "扮弱者"係你用訴諸斷言
he who assert must prove, 所以burden of proof 在你而不在其他人. 你而家只係不斷推卸
你要我行去邊, 要我做任何嘢, 你已經違反咗"he who assert must prove"原則

對香港人嚟講，心魔應該係蛀港部隊。
所以，港獨派要做的話，策略上照計係針對蛀港部隊。

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'
唔好又用人身攻擊去逃避你嘅burden of proof

明白，既然你不承認你存在此世界上
咁可以case closed

又打稻草人, 我只係指出人無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof. 所以如果你係要我去做啲乜的話, 你已經你推卸緊burden of proof

又扮弱者
你的burden of proof係你自己proof
講到囗臭
留定位俾你
你行入Westminster 自然有proof
冇文件,冇網址
人方面我會安排
你有你規矩，我有我規則
唔敢嚟，要尻縮，就收皮

又打稻草人, "扮弱者"係你用訴諸斷言
he who assert must prove, 所以burden of proof 在你而不在其他人. 你而家只係不斷推卸
你要我行去邊, 要我做任何嘢, 你已經違反咗"he who assert must prove"原則

你打稻草人，與人冇尤，你自己打夠佢
你柒夠未,定係自大狂?我的proof就係英國政府的人，當然要你親自拜會佢哋,依照你講法，你要他們打俾你定親自揾你?定叫佢哋上膠登招呼你呢位新鮮蘿蔔皮?
你要尻縮,大方地認咗佢，冇問題。一味
用burden of proof，burden the proof只限文件及website，你根本只係弱智。而家成個proof準備好俾你，仲左閃右避,仲要唔認自己係人。此乃歸英派style?

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'
唔好又用人身攻擊去逃避你嘅burden of proof

明白，既然你不承認你存在此世界上
咁可以case closed

又打稻草人, 我只係指出人無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof. 所以如果你係要我去做啲乜的話, 你已經你推卸緊burden of proof

又扮弱者
你的burden of proof係你自己proof
講到囗臭
留定位俾你
你行入Westminster 自然有proof
冇文件,冇網址
人方面我會安排
你有你規矩，我有我規則
唔敢嚟，要尻縮，就收皮

又打稻草人, "扮弱者"係你用訴諸斷言
he who assert must prove, 所以burden of proof 在你而不在其他人. 你而家只係不斷推卸
你要我行去邊, 要我做任何嘢, 你已經違反咗"he who assert must prove"原則

仲有, 你又再次偷換概念, 你將哲學邏輯上嘅舉證責任, 偷換做"你有你規矩".
如果係無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof的話, 咁又點會係"你有你規矩"?
如果係無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof的話, 咁我縮同唔縮, 又有咩關係? 個burden of proof 咪又喺你度.
你只係不斷用不同嘅邏輯謬誤轉移視線去我身上啫

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'
唔好又用人身攻擊去逃避你嘅burden of proof

明白，既然你不承認你存在此世界上
咁可以case closed

又打稻草人, 我只係指出人無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof. 所以如果你係要我去做啲乜的話, 你已經你推卸緊burden of proof

又扮弱者
你的burden of proof係你自己proof
講到囗臭
留定位俾你
你行入Westminster 自然有proof
冇文件,冇網址
人方面我會安排
你有你規矩，我有我規則
唔敢嚟，要尻縮，就收皮

又打稻草人, "扮弱者"係你用訴諸斷言
he who assert must prove, 所以burden of proof 在你而不在其他人. 你而家只係不斷推卸
你要我行去邊, 要我做任何嘢, 你已經違反咗"he who assert must prove"原則

你打稻草人，與人冇尤，你自己打夠佢
你柒夠未,定係自大狂?我的proof就係英國政府的人，當然要你親自拜會佢哋,依照你講法，你要他們打俾你定親自揾你?定叫佢哋上膠登招呼你呢位新鮮蘿蔔皮?
你要尻縮,大方地認咗佢，冇問題。一味
用burden of proof，burden the proof只限文件及website，你根本只係弱智。而家成個proof準備好俾你，仲左閃右避,仲要唔認自己係人。此乃歸英派style?

我係話你打稻草人, 唔好屈我
我柒唔柒係唔係自大狂都同burden of proof 在你無關. 你呢度又用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
你提出"英國一定唔會收返", 你就要拎出理據, 無論你叫人哋自己去搵, 定還是話證據喺邊度, 你已經你推卸緊你嘅burden of proof
你上面只你不斷再用"需唔需要向我證明"去偷換你"有需要證明"

一係你就白痴都咩叫burden of proof 都唔知. 呢個世界上, 就算只剩你一個人, 你嘅一句statement個burden of proof 都係喺你身上.
(當然得你一個人, 你無need of proof, 但呢個同burden of proof 係兩回事)

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'
唔好又用人身攻擊去逃避你嘅burden of proof

明白，既然你不承認你存在此世界上
咁可以case closed

又打稻草人, 我只係指出人無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof. 所以如果你係要我去做啲乜的話, 你已經你推卸緊burden of proof

又扮弱者
你的burden of proof係你自己proof
講到囗臭
留定位俾你
你行入Westminster 自然有proof
冇文件,冇網址
人方面我會安排
你有你規矩，我有我規則
唔敢嚟，要尻縮，就收皮

又打稻草人, "扮弱者"係你用訴諸斷言
he who assert must prove, 所以burden of proof 在你而不在其他人. 你而家只係不斷推卸
你要我行去邊, 要我做任何嘢, 你已經違反咗"he who assert must prove"原則

仲有, 你又再次偷換概念, 你將哲學邏輯上嘅舉證責任, 偷換做"你有你規矩".
如果係無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof的話, 咁又點會係"你有你規矩"?
如果係無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof的話, 咁我縮同唔縮, 又有咩關係? 個burden of proof 咪又喺你度.
你只係不斷用不同嘅邏輯謬誤轉移視線去我身上啫

你完全忘記人證亦係proof其中一種
柒就要認,成件事根本非常簡單，係你自己將其複雜化,為你自己尻縮掩飾，你還是收皮吧

[quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]Holder of the burden[edit]

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

唔好將你嘅burden of proof 轉移去國會度. 就算你或其他人同國會無任聯繫, 你都可以引link 或文件. 唔該唔好不斷將你嘅burden of proof 四圍推.

On99
人地係完全ignore收回香港呢個option
仲有文件?
那一份FAC REPORT有提過收回香港？
其實四圍推果個係你
一味叫人用文件去prove一件永遠不會再存在既野
俾機會你親自收到這個現實，你又縮
國會就後授予政府權力的核心，我一直講國會，根本非常合理。
永遠的free rider心態，不過已經唔關人事
至少，授予國會權力的選民一定反對犧牲自己財富去養你呢班free rider.呢個根本係現實。

講多無謂, he who assert must prove. 你聲稱國會乜乜乜, 你就拎出國會有乜乜乜嘅證據
無證據你就收聲
我係唔係free rider 都好, burden of prove 都在你. 唔洗係咁用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
有幾多證據, 就講幾多嘢, 無證據就唔好鳩up

你人到先講啦,9up

你要我人到，已經係將burden of proof推畀我啦

做咩呀?行入西敏寺見個代表都唔敢呀？
仲叫歸英，見下政府都唔敢

我已指出, 就算我唔存在喺呢個世界上都好，
he who assert must prove都係不變
如我不存在喺呢個世界上, 我如何去"見人'
唔好又用人身攻擊去逃避你嘅burden of proof

明白，既然你不承認你存在此世界上
咁可以case closed

又打稻草人, 我只係指出人無論我是否存在呢個世界上, 你都係有burden of proof. 所以如果你係要我去做啲乜的話, 你已經你推卸緊burden of proof

又扮弱者
你的burden of proof係你自己proof
講到囗臭
留定位俾你
你行入Westminster 自然有proof
冇文件,冇網址
人方面我會安排
你有你規矩，我有我規則
唔敢嚟，要尻縮，就收皮

又打稻草人, "扮弱者"係你用訴諸斷言
he who assert must prove, 所以burden of proof 在你而不在其他人. 你而家只係不斷推卸
你要我行去邊, 要我做任何嘢, 你已經違反咗"he who assert must prove"原則

你打稻草人，與人冇尤，你自己打夠佢
你柒夠未,定係自大狂?我的proof就係英國政府的人，當然要你親自拜會佢哋,依照你講法，你要他們打俾你定親自揾你?定叫佢哋上膠登招呼你呢位新鮮蘿蔔皮?
你要尻縮,大方地認咗佢，冇問題。一味
用burden of proof，burden the proof只限文件及website，你根本只係弱智。而家成個proof準備好俾你，仲左閃右避,仲要唔認自己係人。此乃歸英派style?

我係話你打稻草人, 唔好屈我
我柒唔柒係唔係自大狂都同burden of proof 在你無關. 你呢度又用人身攻擊轉移視線去我身上
你提出"英國一定唔會收返", 你就要拎出理據, 無論你叫人哋自己去搵, 定還是話證據喺邊度, 你已經你推卸緊你嘅burden of proof
你上面只你不斷再用"需唔需要向我證明"去偷換你"有需要證明"

一係你就白痴都咩叫burden of proof 都唔知. 呢個世界上, 就算只剩你一個人, 你嘅一句statement個burden of proof 都係喺你身上.
(當然得你一個人, 你無need of proof, 但呢個同burden of proof 係兩回事)

你算吧啦，你呢條弱智連proof的種類都未分清楚，仲講乜柒burden of proof?
Burden of proof就係你的稻草人,你打咗十幾頁都未知柒