I do like how confusing it can be if you don't think (like a sun reader might)how do you prove someone is guilty of destroying evidence when that evidence has been destroyed?
obviously its the absence of known evidence that is the issue etc
(obviously its the absence of known evidence that is the issue etc
HappyToast Groat froth,
Wed 16 May 2012, 9:32,
archived)
"Prove you have no weapons of mass destruction"
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Wed 16 May 2012, 9:46,
archived)
"Look - this is my box marked WMD. As you can see - it's empty. Now you can all go home."
Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus,
Wed 16 May 2012, 10:50,
archived)
your ink is toxicand your cardboard suspect!
( ferret -> twitter.com/syfyautocorrect <-,
Wed 16 May 2012, 11:11,
archived)