Richard,

contrary to my announcement I am going to make two final remarks ;-) 
>
>No, it's called honesty.  Your code snippet, as a way of addressing 
>the question, *IS* deeply flawed, and it so happens that one of the 
>flaws is in your favour.  The other flaws are not, of course.
>
Your argumentation in this whole thread was centered around the idea 
that there is the premise that the equality of #= is about state and 
nothing else. You concluded that the question of changing Sets in a 
Set is by definition sort of nonsense. Furthermore you argued that 
every "competent" programmer has to know this. 

My code snippet had only one intention. It wanted to show that this
premise, while being valid for you (it may be even sound), seems to be
not universally accepted or applied. For that it needed to find only a
_few_ classes which are contradicting the premise. Well, it found
_many_. Not the precise number, but I took it for granted that you
would see the principle behind it. In this context the snippet is the
opposite of "deeply flawed", it shows exactly, what I wanted to show:
That the question is not simply nonsense or immediately answered by
the mere existence of this premise.
>  
>I spent a couple of hours on that message.  I didn't spend my time in 
>idle insult, but took the question "what is the rareness of 
>definitions of #= in Squeak *really* evidence of" seriously. 
>
Of course I see that you are putting hard work into your posts and I 
really appreciate this. 

Regards
Martin