~>>  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.

 EC> And now you are just pretending to be stupid, to cover up
 EC> the fact that your earlier responses gave away your
 EC> stupidity.  Every number except ONE is NOT ONE.

 You said you are an economist. You really aren't, are you.
 Anyone who is that bad at math could not possibly be an
 economist.

 If you can show two, then you can show one. If you can show
 100,000 then you can show one. Which meets the criteria I set.

 IOW, you are not only playing word games, you are getting even
 that wrong.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Vanderbilt DOS:  (A)bort  (R)etry  (C)all Daddy
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a