Earl Croasmun -> Bob Klahn wrote:

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

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

One wonders if he's bright enough to know that we're not laughing *WITH*
him, that we are, in fact, laughing *AT* him.  :)

-- 
L'Chaim,
Mimi

fcpnmimi(at)cox.net

http://www.myspace.com/fcpnmimi

Whatcha reading?

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)