Hello, Todd. You wrote: (1) "I never used the words 'acceptable', 'nonacceptable', or 'not acceptable' regarding your premises." OK, Todd.  Acceptability is a criterion by which an argument premise can be evaluated by a logician. You said my premises were poor.  I presumed that you knew how to evaluate acceptability of a premise, if you would go so far as to say that my premises are poor.  You didn't understand what I was asking for, I think. You wrote: (2) "There are instances of the predicate types that you identify where an individual (specifically a human being) will identify themselves as belonging to both partitions." Yes, and do they do so correctly?  Here is an example in which I believe a person is being incorrect in identifying an object (a statement) with both sides of a partition. (3) Your statement is kinda clear, that is, clear AND nonclear. The speaker of statement (3) is being casual in her speech, or is confronting a limit of her ability to explain, or speak in English, about the concepts she wants to communicate. You wrote: (4) "I asked you to test your experience and that of others about this. Have you?" Have I when?  I did many times before I ever thought to write the article.  I have repeatedly noticed speakers (and writers) who use a contrary predicate to describe something when evidence only exists for a complementary predicate to describe that thing.  I have LOTS of experience of people doing that.  I have done that myself.  But to blame categorical logic for that error is to make a mistake in reasoning, and that is part of what my discussion is intended to address. In response to my statement that you need a good grasp of informal logic in order to properly evaluate my arguments, you wrote: (5) "No I don't...". Given your statement in quote (5), I conclude that: (6) You, Todd, think you don't need to learn, particularly learn college class material, about informal logic. If you don't already know formal logic, that is, categorical logic, or prepositional logic, or relational predicate logic, than parts of my earlier posts might have been unclear to you.  If you don't know informal logic, than you will have a more difficult time evaluating my premises for acceptability. But you can certainly write that my premises are false, and that's what you've done.  I have read more of your writing to me than what I responded to in this post.  Trust that I will respond in some way to all your written feedback, before I post an article, on this thread's topic, to this forum.  Already, in response to your feedback, I have realized that it would be good to include a glossary, a glossary that includes short synonym lists for technical terms, at the end of my article. -nj