What does this have to do with the above?
Are you saying that lenin did not do forced nationalisation or that the boards of AIG + co are communist sympathisers? Or is there there something I am missing here?

I would say when you start having forced nationalisation is a sign you have moved into commie territory.

Ok so I apologise for failing to explain this properly. Its a bit confusing as "you" and "I" are used in several different ways here. I was not objecting to any rules of grammar, nor was I talking about "YOU" and "I" as falconwolf and CC respectively. I put them in capitals to distinguish the real you from the YOU in the story. To retaliate your example:

Now to avoid confusion lets give YOU and I names. Say You = john, I = frank.

etc.. you get the idea.

Now to bring this whole saga back into context; it has been about assertions and backing them up with evidence. Do negative assertions require evidence? The poster I was previously discussing with stated that they did not. I was of the opinion that they did. I gave the example of asserting that the sky is not blue. Does this assertion require any evidence as it is negative?

Now you joined this conversation late and on a somewhat tangent point. So finally the reason I was objecting in my previous point was because in your example John makes the assertion, but its up to Frank (ie. the you and I part) to prove it. This has nothing to do with the discussion as it is up to John to prove his own assertions, not Frank.

I hope this makes things more clear.

Come on, the government got shares in return for massive investment, and massive loans at under market interest rates, at the agreement of the companies, following relevant laws! If you think this can somehow be compared to forced nationalisation then you need your head examined.

Why would it? You either enjoy spending time with them or you dont. Explaining why you enjoy spending time with them doesn't really change that at all.

They are the ones who interrogated the prisoners of war.

I think the article would have been more shocking if they turned the focus around. 15% of engineers use twitter. 16% of tweets actually useful news, and 7.6% actual conversations. I'm quite surprised it's that successful.

You keep using You and I, when i have already explained that its assertions that YOU make that YOU have to prove, not I (YOU and I in your story that is). If you cannot prove assertions that you make then dont make them, because they are not defensible (i.e. see this in the context of the original conversation I had with the OP).

I would note that even you (presumably right-wing/libertarian?) still said weakening rather than removing.

To be fair this is what you said:

my emphasis. So my response was about that. In that situation its up to the YOU person to prove it.

To answer your point: You can easily prove negative assertions - in your case you show your bank statements for the time period. Think about what you would do if you really were in that situation and had to show to a judge that someone did not pay their debt to you. You would bring proof of the debt, as well as all your bank statements that show that no amount matching the debt were deposited by said person.

social socialism! You heard it here first folks!

Also - I'm quite tired of people hating on socialism. Many of its ideas form the backbone of the western world. Minimum wage, unemployment benefits, paid holidays, weekends, sick leave, workplace safety, N-hour week, overtime, child labour laws, trade unions, healthcare and to a lesser extent pacifism and egalitarianism esp. in regard to minorities. All these ideas were and still are socialist ideas, that are now largely taken for granted, but not long ago were the scene of bloody battles.

So by all means criticise socialist ideas that you disagree with, but dont do as the above poster has done, and just use it as a label for "things I dont like". You are basically spitting on people who have died fighting for your rights.

You are quite right, I have confused you with another conversation. Apologies.

The wikipedia link was not about looking up citations for others, note that I dont ask you to do so, but for informing yourself. Here it is again:

"FFS this is not some pre-internet age where you have to write letters to someone across the world and wait 6 months for a reply. Be proactive - if you what to find out something dont challenge the internet to find it for you - just look it up on wikipedia and you will have your answer plus all the statements are backed up with citations (including negative ones!!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation"

Why would you have to prove it? If I make any kind of assertion I have to prove it not you. This is not really related at all.

I specifically said NOT blue to illustrate the absurdity of your previous statement.

Jesus christ, is this seriously how you remember this conversation? Click on your original comment and read what you wrote - You demanded others to provide citations for you, then you justified this on the basis that your claim was "negative" and therefore did not need citations. I pointed out that if you make assertions of any kind you have to provide proof. As an added bonus I introduced you to the wonderful world of wikipedia where you can learn more about such topics. Where in this am I saying you need to find citations for other people???

also how symmetrical their main features are and the ratios between them as per above.

Yes, which is why everyone who drank it is dead. For a less-retarded look at the safety concerns see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_flouridation#Safety

Note that even the article you linked to makes clear that current research supports the levels found in tap water.