comp.sys.mac.advocacy

"Wally" stated in post
C41982B1.1A45F%Wally@wally.world.net on 4/2/08 3:36 AM:

>>> "The "subset" mentioned above that you did not assign a label to which I
>>> will merely call "the subset" came into being as a result of you wanting to
>>> demonstrate how many elements of the set S2 were over 1000, the answer of
>>> course was that none of the elements of S2 were over 1000"-Wally
>>>
>>> "Right:"-Snit
>>
>> Your dishonest snipping does not change the fact that {0} is not a subset of
>> integers 1 through 10...
>
> I laid out the purpose of your example as I saw it ... And you agreed to my
> summation, what's dishonest about that?
>
>> nor have I *ever* agreed with your ignorant claim
>> that it was (though Sandman has lied about me agreeing).
>
> He didn't lie... As you *did* agree!
>
>> Your ignorance and dishonesty in relation to the topic of basic set theory
>> has been beaten to death. Here is a one example:
>>
>>

You snipped dishonestly... I *never* agreed that {0} was a subset of
integers 1 through 10. You are lying when you snip and try to make it seem
like I agreed with your ignorant position.

I do, of course, agree with you when you say "none of the elements of S2
were over 1000". I *disagree* with you when you claim that *one* was, the
element 0... being that it was neither in the set nor over 1000.


--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!