Hi, Derrick. You wrote: (1) "6), 3), 14), 2), 9), 11), 8), 7), 5), 1), 14), 16),4), 13), 10), 12)." and I read it, word for word.  Thanks for being an interested reader of my posts!  :-) I have a request for you, Derrick.  Could you check if I understand syllogism standardization, using evidence you take from reading my post: (2) "Correct application of categorical logic does not cause misuse of the either/or distinction." and dated "01/11/2003 04:13:09"? After reading post (2), you might also read post (3), written by me in response to my post (2). (3) "Re:Correct application of categorical logic does not cause misuse of the either/or distinction." dated "01/11/2003 04:13:09" I sure hope that, when you wrote: (4) "6), 3), 14), 2), 9), 11), 8), 7), 5), 1), 14), 16), 4), 13), 10), 12)." you weren't being intentionally cruel.  If you were, then you should read my post : (5)  "Re:Re:Re:Re:andrea's new book and WITW" dated "27/10/2003 22:44:58", in thread "andrea's new book and WITW"  so that you gain appreciation for why I write my posts the way I do lately. I write my posts according to rule (6), among other rules. (6) Write your post in a way that entertains you, not just your reader. Are you familiar with rule (6)?  Well, I don't follow it to be cruel to my readers, whatever you might think.  -nj