"Digger" > wrote
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:04:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> >>>> >>>A baby is not a vegan, nor is it a non-vegan,
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> It has to be one or the other, you stupid idiot. If
> >>>> >> it is not non-vegan, then it is a vegan.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Wrong
> >>>>
> >>>> It's logically certain that if a baby or animal is not
> >>>> non-vegan, then it is vegan
> >>>
> >>>If a tree is not non-vegan then is it vegan?
> >>
> >> Yes, according to that statement.
> >
> >Wrong answer
>
> It's the only logical answer according to that statement.
> Once the double negative is removed from
>
> 'a tree is not non-vegan'
>
> you're left with
>
> 'a tree is vegan'
>
> It's an incorrect statement because trees aren't vegans,

The light is beginning to come on... well done.

-snip tap-dance-