Hello, Mr. West. While you call yourself "RollsAnotherOne", I'm going to call you "Mr. West".  Happy? You wrote: (1) "I would like to offer you the challenge of explicating your intuitions concerning the relationship between the proposition defined by this thread's topic heading and the quoted material provided above." Discussion of the distinction between complementary and contrary predicates, and any challenge to the value of categorical logic, both belong squarely under the topic heading "Epistemology". The distinction between complementary and contrary predicates should be of interest to anyone who has considered whether: (2) a challenge to an either/or statement should be added to the meta-model. (3) Categorical logic, per se, fails to correctly formalize either/or distinctions. I disagree with propositions (2) and (3). In general, any NLPer who challenges any formal logic system, who claims that a natural language argument can't be adequately symbolized using any formal logic system, might be interested in my posts to this thread.  I believe that some NLPers DO challenge formal logic systems.  In my opinion, a NLPer who DOES challenge a formal logic system is also making an epistemological argument.  That epistemological argument deserves discussion in this forum. I might make the distinction between complementary and contrary predicates using  propositional logic and relational predicate logic symbolization examples at a later time (in this thread). -nj