~>  EC> She did not say that ALL DVDs cannot
~>  EC> be erased.  There do exist DVDs that cannot be erased,
~>  EC> however.
 
~>  She said DVD's cannot be erased. Not some DVDs, not some
~>  catagory of DVDs.

That was established some time back.  She did not say "some" and she did
not say "all."  You imported the "all."

~>  For a negative to be true in such a case it must be true for all
~>  elements of the set.

If it is made about "all elements of the set."  You are spinning your
wheels in your silly effort to come up with some way to quibble with her
comment.  And even WITHIN your quibble you are not doing it well, since
your quibble also requires you to put dissimilar items (pre-pressed DVDs,
DVD-Rs, and DVD-RWs) into the SAME "set" rather than different
"sets."  As
Ross pointed out some time back, the usual meaning of "DVD" is the
pre-pressed and uneraseable disk that one buys or rents with data already
on it.  DVD-RWs are significantly different from them.  So what you have
been trumpeting for so long as her making an mistake may have simply been
the two of you using a different vocabulary.  Which makes all your puffing
just a semantics game by you.  That is fundamentally different from your
attempt to defend the placement of Duluth in the wrong state!

 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a