~>  EC> Many, many people are bright enough to realize that your
~>  EC> sentence came out as gibberish.  What you said originally
~>  EC> was "not one," which is a condition that can be met by any
~>  EC> number other than one.  I pointed out your error.  You
~>  EC> implicitly admitted your error when you REVISED your claim
~>  EC> to "not even one."  So for you to walk away mumbling about
~>  EC> whether anyone ELSE is or is not bright, well, gee, that is
~>  EC> just the HEIGHT of irony!

~>  EC> And that is just ONE of the MANY reasons why so many people
~>  EC> laugh at your posts!

~>  Any number above one *INCLUDES* "not one". The only number that
~>  "not one" actually applies to is zero.

And now you are just pretending to be stupid, to cover up the fact that
your earlier responses gave away your stupidity.  Every number except ONE
is NOT ONE. 
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a