Sentences with "not"

Cathy is emphasizing that the things under discussion are not the same. If she meant to contradict Bryan's statement, she misspoke. By the way, this would be the same were one dicussing British usage.

Thx. So all in all both (Bryan and Cathy) agree that the things they are talking about are not the same?

Bear in mind this is a reported conversation. It is not in perfect English.

I would amend it thus:
Bryan: So they are not the same then?
Cathy: No they aren´t.

Cathy is agreeing with Bryan's deduction that they are not the same.

Thx, but the original conversation is in the opening post:
Bryan: But they are not the same then.
Cathy: No they aren´t.

In this original conversation both (Cathy and Bryan) agree that the things they are talking about are not the same?

McTag is right.

I would also place a comma before the word then.

But the conversation is not written by myself. It is:
Bryan: But they are not the same then.
Cathy: No they aren´t.

So here both (Cathy and Bryan) agree that the things they are talking about are not the same?

Well, so whoever wrote it did it incorrectly.

It should have a comma after "no"

I agree, they are not the same.

I see.

Nevertheless, it was written incorrectly by whomever wrote it.

Ask not what the country can do for you.

Ok I understand, but I want to interpretate the original conversation, so can you pleass help me?

Bryan: But they are not the same then.
Cathy: No they aren´t.

So here both (Cathy and Bryan) agree that the things they are talking about are not the same?

Glennn is wrong. The sentences are not incorrect. (As well, Glennn's English is poor--it would be "whoever" wrote it, not "whomever"--whoever is the subjective, whomever is the objective.) Not only is the second sentence not incorrect, this type of locution is common among English speakers. Yes, Bryan and Cathy agree that the things are not the same.

Finally, one would "interpret," not "interpretate." I understand that it would seem that the noun interpretation derives from a verb, interpretate, but no such verb exists.

Setanta is wrong. The first sentence, in the context given, is not correct. That sentence should be begin with the word so. Setanta also failed to catch the error in the first sentence where there should have been a comma placed before the word then. Furthermore, Setanta was also incorrect when he implied that Glennn had indicated that both sentences are wrong. Glennn did no such thing.

Also, Setanta has made the obvious mistake of emphasizing words by placing quotation marks around them. He should have set them off using bold print or italics. He compounded his error by being inconsistent in his method of setting off a word, as he bold printed the word no in his second sentence. And as if to add insult to injury, he used both italics and bold to emphasize that word. Using either would be correct, but certainly not both.

You're a jackass, and apparently a thin-skinned one at that. There is no good reason to assert that "so" should have been used, rather than "but." The use of commas is a stylistic consideration, and not the subject of any "rules." The use of italic and boldface are only available to us because we are posting online at a site which permits their use, and certainly is not the subject of any "rules."

Basically Glennn was wrong in his statement of the case, as well as in his silly use of whomever, so now he is lashing out--although all he can come up with is nit-picking. I don't have lice, so i have no nits to pick. Apparently the case is different with Glennnnn.

"aren't = are not"
n't = Not
except when speaked quickedly.

Wrong again. The first person to call the other a name is the thin-skinned one. That should be obvious.

Also using the word but instead of so would indicate that there was some contention concerning the issue. But Cathy's response indicates so such contention. Therefore, the word so is appropriate.

The use of italics and boldface are to be used when one is using a computer. You only use quotation marks to set off words when using a typewriter or handwriting. You should know this.

Furthermore, if you don't place a comma before the word then in the the first sentence, it indicates a point in time. You should use a comma when you mean to indicate when something has been decided. You should know that.

Don't you find it odd that you characterize being corrected by another as an act of nit-picking. But when you do it, it's somehow not nit-picking?

Also, you failed to capitalize the Iin your second to last sentence. I only bring this up to offer you an example of some real nit-picking.

Not having a 'setanta' figure or that promiscuous partner of his, in "any given classroom" (Mine) Go read at Oxford, would compel folk to failure. It's a necessary evil, Glenn.

Wheter wrong or not, I asked about the meaning of the original discussion, so can you please tell me your opinion?

Bryan: But they are not the same then.
Cathy: No they aren´t.

So here both (Cathy and Bryan) agree that the things they are talking about are not the same?