2 ms·

No you still don't seem to get the point. I'm saying the *absence* of gunpowder residue means something, I'm not saying the presence of it means anything.

• thaumasiotes 3y ago
  withinboredom seems to be making the similar but tangential point that, in the same way that absence of gunpowder is evidence [of something] while presence of gunpowder isn't evidence of anything, it's possible to demonstrate that a death was not by suicide, but it isn't possible to demonstrate that a death was by suicide. Same idea, but reversing "which part of the sentence is the variable".
  • sfn42 3y ago
    I understand what they're saying, I just don't know why they keep explaining it when its irrelevant to what I'm saying.
    • vasco 3y ago
      If you fire a gun inside a car, both people and the car would be full of gun powder residue, not just the hand that shot - I think.
      • dolmen 3y ago
        ... and that should be the same residue.
    • withinboredom 3y ago
      I'm not "keeping explaining." I made a counter-point, and you redirected me to your point; I acknowledged that I got your point and explained I was making a counter-point, and you reiterated your point. I upvoted your final reiteration to ack that the conversation was over.