->> You aren't even bright enough to realize that "not even
one" is to
->> emphasize including more than one.

 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

 You once said you are an economist. You may have taken some
 courses in economics, you may have even gotten a BA degree in
 teh subject, though that is doubtful, but no economist could be
 as incompetent in math as you appear to be.

 Any number above one *INCLUDES* "not one". The only number that
 "not one" actually applies to is zero. You cannot show any
 number of lies in fido above zero, by me.

 Recognize the fact that you cannot reach any number above one if
 you don't have at least one to start with.

 EC> implicitly admitted your error when you REVISED your claim
 EC> to "not even one."  So for you to walk away mumbling about

 I clarified my statement, or tried to. I did not make an error.
 You are obviously mathematiclly incompetent. Or, as it is often
 said, you are innumerate.

 EC> whether anyone ELSE is or is not bright, well, gee, that is
 EC> just the HEIGHT of irony!

 Actually, I do have to allow for the fact that you might be
 flat out lying.

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

 Anyone with a functioning brain wonders how you manage to figure
 out how to turn the computer on.



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

 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a