Quote Originally Posted by BlitzAceRush View Post
It doesn't change what you mean, but it dose change what you know. One implies you know for a fact that it damaged 1.0, the other implies you think it did, your meaning can and dose stay the same but that one change makes a massive difference.
I think he killed a man, I know he killed a man, in both instances you think he killed him, but one of them 100% makes him the killer, the other dose not.
Exactly, my meaning doesn't change in either statement. One just hedges bets against uncertainty. But I got another question, in which statement would I be required to provide evidence to back up my assertion? Is someone allowed to make the statement I think he killed a man without providing evidence and argumentation to support that assertion?