necoandjeff wrote:

> > Is likelihood enough reason to demand a man pay millions of dollars?
> > No, he was "found" liable.
>
> Yes, in fact it is. It is called preponderence of the evidence.

Then why can you not accept that he was "found" *liable*, and deserves to
pay, instead of being more likely than not?

> >> There is no absolute.
> >
> > Except whether he did it or not.
>
> See my other post about your difficulty in distinguishing between
> metaphysical and legal concepts.

Nothing metaphysical about it. It's purely factual, and OJ could tell us
all about it if he chose.

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that
I can shove more than three burgers in my mouth!"