NJ, Thank you for continuing to miss my point completely. You make a lot of assumptions too. Namely that some kind of familiarity with something is necessary and secondly, if it in fact was, that I don't possess that familiarity. Hey NJ! Check this one out: "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." Can you imagine someone who purports to argue using any form of logic (let alone mixing them) would make such a conclusion! What a leap! But if you don't get it then you don't get it. Check your premises! Check your premises! Check your premises! But hey, implying that I don't have the requisite familiarity is a great way to avoid any substantive discussion. (Oh yes, NJ I KNOW you didn't actually say it) So is critiquing the critique. You really don't know me, but getting into a debate about requisite coursework is not somewhere I am going to go. Nor is an endless loop of critiqing the critiquing of critiques. Why? Because it just doesn't matter. What you've studied, I've studied, or anyone else has in this context just doesn't matter. Your arguments still don't hold water. In any case... It is clear we are talking past each other and I am done. Hey, maybe it was performance art. If so, the shows over for me. I didn't realize the audience was irrelevant. Signing off, Todd