I said nothing about doubting, which (I agree) needs no proof. Asserting that something is false is a different thing entirely and needs proof if it is to be taken seriously. Put your own thinking cap back on, DSH, and respond to what people write instead of hitting straw men. On Thursday, 14 July 2016 18:19:42 UTC+12, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > No. Not true at all. > > The Burden of Proof is clearly on the person who PROPOSES and ENDORSES a > genealogical connection, NOT on the person who DOUBTS it. > > Put your thinking cap on and put the gin aside. > > It's just like the law in the United States. > > The prosecutor must prove the defendant is GUILTY of the alleged crime. > > The defendant does not have the Burden of Proof to prove he/she is INNOCENT. > > Didn't they teach you this in High School, at the latest? Or were you > sleeping in class? > > DSH > ..... > "RobinPatterson" wrote in message > news:08f69a95-6ae4-47d4-8d8a-23c1d1a5f98a@googlegroups.com... > .......... > > His recent ministerial appointment suggests that Boris is not suffering from > any supposed cousinship with Trump. The lineages match those on Familypedia > (based partly on Geni.com). Doubtless some professional genealogist will say > that one line or other is "bollixed", but that sort of statement needs just > as much proof as a statement that the lineages are all true.