You seem to attract creationists something awful cofty, they keep going back to dig up threads over a year old just to try and pick a fight using half-baked arguments.
As I said before: To have perfect selection in one generation, you had to pay the price of the elimination of the other 9,999 in that same generation (destroying your population) for the evolutionary scenario to work. Your example tried to have the benefit of perfect selection, without the price. There is a cost to selective replacement that must must be paid. In this case the cost in the real world would indeed be the lives of the other 9,999. I was simply showing that an evolutionists own "rosy example scenario" when adjusted for reality runs into trouble.
He has already said (repeatedly) that the beneficial change would disperse over several generations, not that it would be "perfect selection in one generation." I suppose you could modify the illustration to make it more closely fit the reality of natural selection by saying that some of the monkeys keep typing and some are given the first word and that word is slowly passed out to the other monkeys, but it is kind of a pointless change, because that has nothing to do with the main point, which is that evolution is a gradual process that happens in small steps with each individual member of species "working" simultaneously to produce beneficial changes and then spreading them through the population in successive generations.
In other words, while no single monkey is likely to type out a work of Shakespeare on its own, it is far more probable that a large group of monkeys might each be capable of typing out part of it and by pooling their work get the desired end result.