On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:07:14 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:56:36 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> >In article <email@example.com>, >> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > > >> >> 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.