On Mar 19, 7:12 am, Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 19, 5:18 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 19, 5:14 am, Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 19, 4:57 am, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > You may say you didn't write "ought" but I think the intention of your > > > > words is pretty clear. > > > > Thank you for confessing your error. You've not admitted to > > > misunderstanding, nor to reading in things that were not there, but, > > > at least you admit you were wrong in claiming that I said what > > > mathematicians ought to say. > > > **** Well, now you're sadly mistaken in believing I admited such a > > thing, > > You claimed that I'd said 'ought', above you admit that I didn't. > That's a confession. Not a gracious one, I admit, nor a properly > fulsome one, but I wasn't really expecting either of those. [see my > previous comment on expectations]
You seem to be seriously understanding-impaired: your claim was that I admited I was wrong, and I told you I didn't. Now you say I admit that you didn't say "ought", with which I wholeheartedly agree, and yet you still seem utterly oblivious to the fact that you were wrong when you wrote I admited I was wrong...which I have never done.