> >> So generic language cannot be universally true as a matter of > >> mathematical definition? I beg to differ. > > > >If one defines "universal truth" to include what ever the definer > >declares to be true, only then is Zick anything but wrong. > > Yeah I guess although it's a little tough to follow whatever it is you > think you're saying here.
Zick's inability to 'follow' simple declarative statements is his own cross-eyed bear.