Callaway! Hmm...
Let’s say
A= those who call me Drunkard’s Walk , or DW
B= those who call me Walkie
C= those who dislike me
D= those who don’t dislike me
( I almost made D represent the set of peple who like me. but then I either have to add yet another set. or else get into a pointless argument with somebody who doesn’t have any strong feelings either way ; well, not until they notice that their POV isn't represented in this schema. So , we’ll let D represent the union of those two sets, for the sake of simplicity, hmm?* )
* see my P.S. below for further quibbles
All I said in my post above is that:
(C intersectiion B)= the empty set
What
you were saying is that:
(A intesection D) does not equal the empty set; also that ( A intersection B )doesn’t equal the empty set either-
Indeed, Callaway herself is living proof thst the set [(A intersecrtion B)intersection D] contains at least one member.
Right?
But that’s something I already knew, so don’t worry!
I’d draw a Venn diagram but I don’t have a scanner
Anyway, hopefully, you know (or can intuitively grasp) enough Set Theory to see there’s no logical contradition between your statments and mine, and that it doesn’t add up to paranoia on my part!
Or…you could take my word for it?
Anyway thanks for the reassurance, Callaway. It made me smile, and I had a bit of fun responding.
Now for the million dollar question: Is this a sufficiently aspie reponse for y’all ? * big grin *
-Walkie* P.S.
And now- oops! D=C’, I know, I know, but let’s leave that aside, huh? It doesn’t really affect my argument.
Btw, before somebody points out that I‘ve
really gone overboard on the brackets, here, I think maybe I’d better add that I didn’t feel like demontstrating that that the Associative Law applies to that operation, and I can’t assume that Callaway already knows that. Aside from that, my substitution of words for symbols seems to me to demand a few extra brackets, for clarity.
Walkie here
short for Drunkard's Walk
You can change your name so on the forums it is seen as Walkie. Then you won't have to sign your name at the end of your posts (well, you don't have to do that anyway). 
Thanks, renaeden.
That’s a good idea, except….well, Walkie is a sort of affectionate diminutive, I suppose, which originated from my on-line friends. I’m happy for everyone to call me Walkie (that's why I add that signature, so often) but I’ve noticed, down the years, that those who dislike me religiously stick to “Drunkard’s Walk†or DW for short.
Call me over-fastidious, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to force those people to address me as “Walkie†instead. But that’s what I‘d be doing , effectively , if I changed my handle.
(PS. ‘Scuse the delay in responding. I’ve been too busy making myself unpoular to keep up with this thread)
I might have called you DW or Drunkard's Walk in the past but it was never because I did not like you, Walkie.
I call Ozymandias, Ozymandias rather than Ozy or his Christian name on the forums, but I like him a lot.
Some people may just be sort of formal.
